Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION

Ordered,
That Mr. Don Dixon be added to the Committee of Selection.—[Mr. Goodlad.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Dyslexia

Mr. Raffan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the number of primary and secondary school pupils in Wales suffering from dyslexia and as to what specialist, qualified teaching is available for them.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The Education Act 1981 abolished the categorisation of children by disability, so the precise numbers are not available. Provision for children with learning difficulties is made by local education authorities according to local circumstances.

Mr. Raffan: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that Clwyd local education authority only recently carried

out a survey of primary school pupils to identify those suffering from dyslexia and that it has not yet carried out a similar survey in county secondary schools? Does my hon. Friend agree that all Welsh local education authorities should carry out surveys if they have not already done so, since such data are essential if we are to raise the standard of special teaching for dyslexic pupils up to the admirably high level that prevails at Orrets Meadow school in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: As I think my hon. Friend knows, dyslexia covers a wide range of learning difficulties. The intention behind the relevant provision in the Education Act 1981 was to abolish the categorisation of children by disability. I understand that Clwyd has acted as my hon. Friend described. It is for Clwyd to get on with analysing the number of dyslexic children in secondary schools, if it thinks that it should do so.

Community Charge

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with local authorities in Wales concerning the future of the community charge.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): On 7 January I met representatives of the district and county councils at a meeting of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance to discuss local government finance structure and functions.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating those people in Wales who have campaigned hard and long against the poll tax, often at great personal cost? Will he assure the House that when a replacement tax takes over from the poll tax, as it must, the new tax will take into account the cost of administration and that it will be substantially less than the very high bureaucratic cost of the poll tax?

Mr. Hunt: I do not join the hon. Gentleman in what he asks, but he did not expect that I would. However, I very much look forward to meeting him and his colleagues, as


well as senior representatives of the Liberal Democrats, in the next few days to discuss this thorough, wide-ranging and constructive review of the community charge. My great regret is that the official Opposition have yet to respond positively.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. Friend has done astonishingly well to enable councils in Wales to keep the level of the community charge so much lower than in England, but is he aware of not only the puzzlement but the resentment about the system whereby he has been able to secure so much extra money for rebates to communities? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has anything to say on the subject, but I should be glad if he would at least say that he is well aware of that ill feeling.

Mr. Hunt: Of course, I considered whether we might introduce the English form of transitional relief. I was responsible for formulating it for England. However, there were two reasons why that was not possible. First, it would have taken a great deal of time and administration to introduce. Secondly, I should not have been able to get the relief to as many people as I have. According to my predictions, if the English scheme had applied in Wales, it would have gone to I million people and amounted to £50 million worth of transitional relief. As it is, the relief will go to 1·4 million people and will amount to £62 million.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State aware that Newport's council and its people are bewildered by the perverse effects of the rebate, whereby most prosperous areas get a hand-out and most of the poorer areas get nothing? The Secretary of State has managed to add the unfairness of the old rating system to the unfairness of the poll tax. What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Hunt: Not at all. It is easy to calculate, because it is based on the average rates paid in that community. I have more than trebled the amount of relief and whereas in the past just over 300 communities benefited, now well over 600 do. Three times as much relief now goes to twice as many people.

Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is extremely long on criticism of the community charge but remarkably reluctant to take part in constructive discussions on how to improve it? Is the reason that the Labour party is unclear about which of its 60 local government policies are actually Labour party policy on financing local government?

Mr. Hunt: I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about that matter and understand that the Labour party has introduced a new condition for participating in the review of the community charge in Wales. In England, Labour Members have confined themselves to saying that they will sit down and talk if the purpose of the exercise is the abolition of the "poll tax"; in Wales, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) has now introduced a second condition, which is that I must promise to consider the introduction of a property-based tax levied according to an individual's ability to pay. It is about time the Labour party spent more time considering a positive attitude rather than considering what other conditions it will impose.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is universal agreement among all local authorities,

most political parties and even most members of the Conservative party that the poll tax is bad and should be abolished? Will not the Ministr admit that, over the years, the poll tax has been seen to be unfair? Does he accept that the most important statement for him to make to the House and to the Welsh people is that, in the first instance, the poll tax should be done away with?

Mr. Hunt: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the matter, why will not he drop the nonsense of preconditions and talk to me about the future of local government taxation? In England the average payment after relief and benefit is £300 whereas in Wales, according to my latest calculations, which are in line with the settlement that I announced, the average payment of community charge after relief and benefit will be £161.

Countryside Council for Wales

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairperson of the Countryside Council for Wales to discuss development and the environment in rural Wales.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I met the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales on 30 October last year to discuss the council's corporate plan and other aspects of its proposed activities for the next financial year and beyond.

Dr. Thomas: During discussions with the chairman of the Countryside Council, did the Minister of State discuss the funding of national parks in Wales? Will funding now be directed through the council, because the national parks in Wales have complained to me and many other hon. Members that their increase is about half that available to national parks in England this year and in the future?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The national parks' supplementary grant is, as the hon. Gentleman says, funded separately from the Countryside Council for Wales. We shall have to see how things develop, but we have increased the national parks' supplementary grant for next year by 11·2 per cent. Their representatives have been to see me. That increase was substantially more than inflation and is on top of a real-terms increase of about 37 per cent. over the past decade or so.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: In his discussions with the chairman, did my hon. Friend satisfy himself that the Countryside Council for Wales will be adequately resourced?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I have given that assurance, even for the formation of the council in its shadow form. This year, we gave it £470,000 of grant in aid and next year it will have a total of £14·5 million.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister will be aware that one of the special and unique features of south Wales is the finger of rural Wales stretching between the urban valleys. He will be aware of the great consternation about parts of rural south Wales being destroyed by landfill sites because local authorities are so strapped for cash that they cannot afford recycling units. What provision will the Government make to meet that need in urban south Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: There is another question on the Order Paper about the green belt which my hon. Friend


the Under-Secretary of State hopes to answer. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the conference that was held under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. There is no question but that parks are of tremendous importance to the whole of Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman has particular regard for the Brecon Beacons national park, which generates much interest in the industrial valleys of south Wales and is supported by several county councils.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the unemployment total in Wales to exceed 100,000.

Mr. David Hunt: In January 1991, the unadjusted total of unemployed claimants was 101,452. The seasonally adjusted total is 96,000.

Mr. Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that those figures represent much suffering and an appalling waste of human resources in Wales? After 12 years of Tory Government frittering away our national assets, under-investment in education and training, transport, research, industry and employment generally, does the Secretary of State feel neither shame nor embarrassment that he has no new initiatives, policies or prospects for improving the position of the people of Wales?

Mr. Hunt: To be fair, five years ago the headline total was pushing 200,000; it has fallen substantially since. I am certainly doing everything that I can to promote Wales and the development of the Welsh economy. Having carefully considered transport provision, I am happy to announce a boost of more than £8 million in local authority capital provision for urban projects. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I am making a £4·9 million transport grant which will enable his county council to make a start on the lower Rhymney valley relief road scheme.

Mr. Ray Powell: I thank the Secretary of State for meeting the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on Welsh affairs and myself to discuss an issue involving further redundancy and unemployment in Wales. If the Government continue like this, we shall soon reach the figure of 200,000 that he mentioned. I am talking about the 40 or 50 staff of the community action training organisation, which has trained 4,000 people in the past 10 years. It was established as a community initiative, but the Welsh training and enterprise councils, which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for setting up, have withdrawn CATO's contract for 200 trainees. The Secretary of State should at least announce whether he intends to carry out an investigation to ensure that the TECs did not take a political decision on the closure of CATO.

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to give that latter assurance. After hearing the argument of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, I contacted the training and enterprise council. I understand that it had reasons for reaching its decision and I have asked it to make them available to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this morning's announcement of the creation of

a further 60 jobs at Breger Gibson in my constituency, which brings the total to just under 300? Does he agree that that is a further sign of how much more diversified, soundly based and therefore resilient our local economy has become in the past 10 years, thanks in large part to Government policy?

Mr. Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The £2 million factory expansion at Holywell, Clwyd, which will create 60 new jobs is indeed welcome. I was happy to be able to make a Welsh Office grant towards the project. As well as creating the 60 new jobs, it will secure the jobs of 230 people who are already employed by the company, which was established as recently as 1986.

Mr. Barry Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks about transport. Is not he deeply concerned at the depth of the recession and the nature of the redundancies in Wales? I have in mind hundreds of redundancies in coal, steel, cement, furniture, clothing and electronics and in famous names such as Pilkington, Hoover and JCB. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the lost BBC and HTV jobs will be very hard to replace? Can he explain why, when unemployment is rising, with the figure of 100,000 in sight, he proposes to cut his industry and employment budget by 35 per cent? Why is that, given that the job situation in Wales is so serious? Will he relent on his plans to make cuts?

Mr. Hunt: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has tried to suggest that there are planned cuts. I believe that he has done a great deal to mislead the press—unintentionally, I am sure. The industry programme, as last year, shows a decline due to the withdrawal of regional development grants, but that had been expected for some time. My industry programme provides for total gross expenditure of £268 million next year, which is some £15 million above this year's spend. It will still be higher than now in 1993–94, even allowing for the end of RDG. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to bring down our country with talk of gloom and doom. The medium to longer-term prospects for Wales are as good as ever.

Heartbeat Wales

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of Heartbeat Wales.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): The Heartbeat Wales programme, which is run by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales, continues to combat the high incidence of coronary heart disease in Wales. The evaluation that we have started under the programme, which was established in 1985, already shows welcome trends in the sample survey. It shows that smoking and excess drinking are decreasing and that more people in Wales now take exercise.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Notwithstanding the excellent work of Dr. John Catford and his team in Heartbeat Wales, my hon. Friend will be aware that the incidence of coronary heart disease in the Principality remains very high when compared with that in other countries. Does he agree that the new general practitioners' contracts provide an excellent opportunity to do more for health promotion? Will he ensure that general practitioners in Wales have the necessary information to deal with patients who come to


them with high levels of blood cholesterol and other indications that may suggest the onset of coronary heart disease?

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend's interest in that matter is well known, as he is the chairman of the all-party food and health forum. I assure him that the plans for action contained in the Health Promotion Authority's document, which has just been issued, concentrate on that. He is right to point out that, in the new GP contracts, health promotion and dealing with heart disease are given very high priority.

A55

Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his present estimated date for completion of the dualling of the carriageways of the A55 from the Welsh border to Bangor.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Dualling of the whole of the A55 route in north Wales is expected to be achieved in 1994.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My hon. Friend and I have represented north Wales constituencies for longer than any other hon. Member in the House. Does my hon. Friend realise—I am sure that he does—how dramatic has been the transformation of the north Wales scene as a result of the progress made on the A55, especially during the past 12 years? Does he think that the public authorities along the route are taking the maximum advantage of the huge potential for development represented by this corridor of opportunity?

Sir Wyn Roberts: My hon. Friend will agree that the plans outlined in our document. "The A55: Road of Opportunity" showed a tremendous amount of activity on the part of local authorities and I certainly look to those authorities to develop opportunities along that magnificent corridor into north Wales.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The Minister will be aware that there are more than a quarter of a million of us living in mid-Wales. We have been very tolerant over the past 10 years. We have looked north and south and have watched the Welsh Office spending millions of pounds on the motorway in south Wales and the dual carriageway in north Wales. Will the Minister assure us that, after 1994, he will consider dualling the carriageway between Shrewsbury and Aberystwyth to make sure that we in mid-Wales see fair play at last?

Sir Wyn Roberts: Our strategy for roads in Wales is set out in "Roads in Wales", which covers the whole of Wales. Not only are we providing the M4 in the south and the A55 in the north; we are spending a considerable amount on links to those two roads. On the north-south route, for example, we are due to spend £100 million on the A470 alone. We shall also be spending on the A483 from Manchester to Swansea and, in addition to Welsh Office spending, we are supporting extensive spending by local authorities on their county roads.

Mr. Martyn Jones: Does the Minister agree that the rural hinterland of north Wales requires links to the A55 if the benefits are to be felt deeper into the areas that really require them, including Denbigh and the Vale of Clwyd? Can the Minister tell me when there will be a link—

perhaps bypassing St. Asaph, with which I know he is concerned? That would add a link from the Vale of Clwyd into the A55 corridor.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Clwyd county council is the responsible highway authority for St. Asaph. On the broad principle, as I said earlier, we are spending a considerable amount on links to the A55. I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that we plan to spend £175 million on those links, which include the A5, the A470, the A487 and the A494.

Green Belts Conference

Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the green belts conference he held in Cardiff on 28 January.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: At the Welsh Office conference my right hon. Friend called for serious consideration to be given to the benefits that statutory green belts could bring to parts of the Principality. Participants at the conference were drawn from the local authority associations and environmental and development interests in Wales. Speakers expressed a wide range of views on the green belt. The Assembly of Welsh Counties has accepted my right hon. Friend's invitation to take forward the consideration of that question as a first priority in its review of strategic planning guidance and to submit an interim report in spring this year.

Mr. Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges the outstanding contribution of the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. Will consultation be confined to the county councils, which are neither planning nor leisure authorities, as South Glamorgan county council appears to be leading the charge to develop that which should be retained as green belt? Will he keep to the forefront the consideration that my constituency, north of the M4 from Tongwynlais to St. Mellons, must be the prime candidate for green belt status?

Mr. Bennett: As usual, my hon. Friend defends with vigour his constituents' views and I certainly take on board his point. We shall certainly ensure that the district councils and the city council in Cardiff are included in our discussions on this matter, because, as he rightly says, they are the planning authorities for most issues.

Mr. John P. Smith: May I tell the Minister that he will find support on both sides of the House for the speedy introduction of statutory green belts in Wales to protect areas like the rural Vale of Glamorgan which are threatened not just by developers, in terms of the destruction of open countryside, but by the lack of much-needed urban regeneration on the waterfront?

Mr. Bennett: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We want the issue to be bipartisan. It is not a matter for party political controversy and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports us.

Mr. Michael: It seems a little late for the Minister to consider being bipartisan. He is becoming very good at attending conferences and appearing to offer help to solve problems that the Government have created. Does he accept that attempts at sensible and coherent planning of land use and the protection of the environment have been undermined by the way in which the Welsh Office has granted planning permission on appeal with gay abandon


over the past 10 years? Will he promise now to break with the policies of the predecessors of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and put the power back into the hands of local elected representatives to protect the environment of our towns, cities and the surrounding countryside?

Mr. Bennett: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's premise.

Schools (Opting Out)

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary and comprehensive schools in Wales have applied to opt out of council control; and how many of these applications have been granted.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Two secondary schools have applied for grant-maintained status. The application in respect of Cwmcarn comprehensive school, Islwyn, has been approved and that in respect of Queen's comprehensive school, Newport, was rejected. No applications have been received from primary schools.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that our local education authorities are being pressured into curbing expenditure which invariably means school closures? When those schools are allowed to opt out, the capital funding is two and a half times the level for local authority schools. Can the Minister explain the rhyme, logic and reason for that ridiculous attitude on the Government's part or is that just bribery to undermine our local authority schools?

Sir Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the option of grant-maintained status was given to the education system, and particularly to parents, under the Education Reform Act 1988. Various procedures must be followed before a school gains grant-maintained status. We have explained our decisions, and the decision letters in the two cases to which I have referred are in the Library. Their revenue funding is much the same as it is for any school under the local management of schools system and the capital funding is provided direct by the Welsh Office in this case. There is a problem in Gwent of surplus places and our decision in relation to Cwmcarn does not contradict that policy in any way.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Denzil Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next intends to meet the newly appointed chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency to discuss the recent fall in manufacturing output in Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: I keep in close touch with the chairman and the chief executive of the Welsh Development Agency about a wide range of issues concerning the development of the Welsh economy.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fall in manufacturing capacity in Wales and the severe damage that has been wrought on the manufacturing base in Wales by 12 years of Tory Government, is not the Secretary of State concerned that the experience and expertise of the recently appointed chief executive of WDA lies almost wholly within the candy floss activity of property? Will he ensure

in future that senior appointments at board level and at senior level reflect sufficient expertise and a track record in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Hunt: I reject the right hon. Gentleman's comments about Phil Head. I believe that he will be a marvellous chief executive. He won a very competitive contest for that position.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's opening comments, I must remind him that the WDA's budget this year is to be exceeded to the highest ever level next year of £160 million, which is £10 million higher than this year and £10 million higher than the figure that I inherited. It is set to remain above the 1990–91 level in each of the subsequent two years. The Welsh Development Agency has the means. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to decry Wales. I have recently seen executives from TSB, DAS, Bosch, Toyota and Dowty Koike. Those companies are now recruiting. That has nothing to do with a candy floss economy, but much to do with an expanding and strong economy.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the people of Wales how his Government have reached such a serious recession after 12 years in power and about £100 billion in North sea oil revenues? Does he agree that falling output and rising unemployment are not just blips but signs of a recession affecting every kind of industry and every kind of worker? Why have he and his right hon. Friends in Cabinet been so complacent? It ill fits the right hon. Gentleman to tell us about our country. His Government are not helping our country.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that I thought that everybody in Wales would be greatly assisted if the Opposition did not talk and preach gloom and doom. The hon. Gentleman mentioned output. Output per employee in manufacturing industry in Wales is the highest ever. In the six years since 1985 manufacturing output in Wales has gone up by 33 per cent. Over the same period output in the United Kingdom is up 19 per cent. Five years ago there were 81 inward investment projects in Wales. We have increased that by 75 per cent. There are 135 per cent. more jobs through inward investment and investment has increased by 263 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman pay attention to those statistics and not play down the recovery in the Welsh economy?

Rural Economy

Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the improvement of the economy of rural Wales during 1991.

Mr. David Hunt: Several.

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the Minister will agree that agriculture plays a major role in the rural economy of Wales. Agriculture is in crisis. In order to restore confidence will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will go to Brussels to discuss Mr. MacSharry's latest proposals? Those proposals, whether phase 2 or phase 3, will have to be accepted. On behalf of both farmers' unions in Wales, may I ask him to give that assurance?

Mr. Hunt: This is very defeatist talk. On Thursday, the hon. Gentleman introduced a debate on agriculture, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture,


Fisheries and Food demonstrated how strongly we should fight the MacSharry proposals. The Leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has just said, and I was astonished to hear it:
Farmers have cried wolf far too often in the past. Now that there is actually a real crisis they are having some difficulty in getting people to listen to them.
They have no difficulty in getting me to listen to them. I am aware of the difficulties. How much does the hon. Gentleman support that statement by the leader of his party?

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). On Friday I attended a meeting about rural affairs. The Minister will know about farmers' serious concern about the future. They have had a bad year with lamb and beef prices, and now they are worried about the GATT proposals and the MacSharry proposals. All that we get from the Government is a vacuum. We know that they are opposed to direct income aid for small farmers. The vacuum creates much anxiety and despair. What can the Secretary of State say to farmers in my constituency who are afraid of going bankrupt?

Mr. Hunt: There are many worries, and I share them. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the fighting speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at last week's AGM of the National Farmers Union. That was a marvellous speech and I support every word of it. The hon. Gentleman should have paid tribute to the recent increase in hill livestock compensatory allowances. I fought hard to secure more than £37 million for Wales and I shall arrange for that money to be distributed to Welsh farmers as quickly as possible.

Foreign Languages

Mr. Grist: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of school leavers in Wales in 1990 held a pass at A to C level in a foreign language at (a) GCSE and (b) advanced level.

Sir Wyn Roberts: In 1988–89, 21·3 per cent. of school leavers in Wales held a GCSE grade A to C in a foreign language. The corresponding figure for advanced level grades A to E was 3·3 per cent. Information for 1989–90 is not yet available.

Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that, compared with the achievements of our European neighbours, those figures are worrying? Does he further agree that, unfortunately, we are short of sufficient foreign language teachers and that the teaching of foreign languages should be started in primary schools?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I, too, would like to see foreign langage teaching started at the primary level because we have had considerable success in teaching Welsh at primary level. There is, indeed, a shortage of foreign langage teachers, but we are combating that by providing bursaries of £1,500 per annum for trainee teachers taking the postgraduate certificate of education and other courses. We, too, would like to see a great improvement in the learning and teaching of foreign languages in Wales.

Mr. Morgan: Could the Minister institute a study into the success rates of students taking foreign languages at GCSE and A-level, linking that with the constant drip,

drip, drip of rainwater passing through leaking school roofs into buckets in the corners? In the county of South Glamorgan, part of which I have the honour to represent, the estimated cost of putting right the backlog of repairs to school buildings has now risen to £32 million, but the annual budget for repairing those roofs is only £9 million. How long is it——

Mr. Speaker: This is a bit wide of languages.

Mr. Morgan: How long will it be before that backlog is put right, and students of foreign languages at GCSE and A-level are given a fair chance of success?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am well aware of the condition of our school buildings. Whenever I see a particularly rotten building and look into its date of construction, I usually find that it was constructed during a Labour Government's period in office.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Arabic History and Art

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Arts what funds are available for the study of Arabic history and art.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): No funds are allocated specifically by the Office of Arts and Libraries for the study of Arabic history and art.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to ask the Minister a question, of which I have given him notice. What response has he made to Professor Akbar Ahmed of Cambridge about the squandering of our legacy of scholarship in the Arab languages and the study of Arab history? Could the Minister say anything about the removal of the famous Islamic collection in Kuwait? May not it be just as well that that has been taken elsewhere temporarily, simply because of the pounding that Kuwait may well receive in a land battle?

Mr. Renton: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am not aware of any squandering of the funding that is needed for Arabic studies at the universities or the university museums. Funding for the universities and the university museums is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that allocations are made by the Universities Funding Council to individual universities in answer to specific bids. Such allocations will, of course, include Arabic studies.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is, alas, sadly true that the contents of the Kuwait museum of Islamic antiquities have been removed by the Iraqis. It is one of the finest collections of Islamic art in the world. For the hon. Gentleman in any sense to take any comfort in the fact that that collection has been taken elsewhere is absolutely astonishing. It is an example of Iraqi pillage and of the despoiling of Kuwait.

Gift Aid

Mr. William Powell: To ask the Minister for the Arts what progress is being made in promoting Gift Aid; and what support the scheme is achieving.

Mr. Renton: A number of arts organisations have already received gifts under Gift Aid. This follows major


initiatives to publicise this very imaginative scheme by the Arts Council and the Museum and Galleries Commission, through their tax guide, and the National Arts Collection Fund through its Gift Aid for Art register.

Mr. Powell: May I say how welcome it is that so many people and bodies are taking advantage of this scheme? Has not the time come for it to be extended from gifts of cash to gifts in kind? Is my right hon. Friend aware that considerable success has been achieved in Australia and in the United States by allowing tax reliefs for gifts in kind? Could not such a scheme be accepted in this country?

Mr. Renton: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. It is satisfactory that a number of bodies such as the Aldeburgh Festival, the English National Opera and the Tate have recently been able to make use of Gift Aid donations. As to the second point, plans to extend Gift Aid to cover gifts in kind are interesting, but as my hon. Friend will know, the decision on this matter rests with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Minister aware that, while many of us in Wales are pleased with Gift Aid in that it has bailed out the Welsh National Opera and other companies, we are worried that funding is being kept from organisations such as the Association of Artists and Designers in Wales, which gives funds to individual painters and sculptors? Is the Minister aware that, while the great institutions may thrive on such aid, individual artists are bereft of funds?

Mr. Renton: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be singing from the tops of the mountains about the help given to Welsh National Opera, and would be particularly grateful to the Welsh Office for the substantial sums that it has put forward to wipe off the accumulated deficit. The hon. Gentleman's other point should be pursued with the Welsh Arts Council. He should be suggesting that it should be studying the issue of direct grants to individual craftsmen in Wales.

Mr. Channon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the success of the scheme would be even greater were it not for the fact that, in some parts of the country, there is difficulty in obtaining Gift Aid certificates? Will he have a word with the Chancellor to ensure that there is an adequate supply of these documents, so that people can press ahead with such schemes?

Mr. Renton: I thank my right hon. Friend. I am interested to hear him say that. One or two other examples of it being difficult to obtain Gift Aid forms have been mentioned to me before. I immediately pursued the matter, to make certain that the forms were available to any charity or artistic organisation that wanted them. If he will let me know the names of any organisation that is missing the forms, I shall follow that up.

Business Support

Mr. Burns: To ask the Minister for the Arts what contribution the business community is making in both financial and manpower resources in supporting the arts.

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Minister for the Arts what role the business community is playing in supporting the arts through the Business in the Arts scheme.

Mr. Renton: I am delighted that the business community is continuing its splendid support of the arts, with sponsorship now standing at around £35 million per annum. Business also provides professional advice to arts organisations through business in the arts, which my Department helps to fund.

Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating a number of businesses in the Chelmsford area, which have generously sponsored arts activities such as the Chelmsford cathedral festival each year? Is not it significant that 70 per cent. of the business sponsorship incentive scheme money goes to the arts outside London?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for this imaginative scheme. I am delighted to hear of the sponsorship of the Chelmsford cathedral festival. I agree that it is satisfactory that so much of the money through the business sponsorship incentive scheme is not spent in the capital but is widely distributed throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tim Smith: What contribution is the business community making to arts organisations in terms of the provision of management skills? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in many ways, this is as valuable as contributions in cash? In how many cases has such help been given?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is true that advice from sympathetic business men on how better to run festivals and artistic performances is useful. Business in the Arts has 60 consultants in a register of management advisers. It made 48 placements in London alone in the current year and is hoping to increase that to 80 in the year ahead. There are a number of interesting illustrations.
For example, an accounts manager from IBM is advising the Tricycle theatre in Kilburn on the design and analysis of an audience research questionnaire. More and more groups of artists are finding that business help is useful.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister recall that during the previous Session I asked a question about a number of paintings and pieces of silver that the previous Prime Minister had stored away at Downing street? I was told that there were 72 different items at No. 10, including paintings from the National gallery. Can we be assured that the various paintings and pieces of silver have now been returned to their rightful owners, or could it be that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has set up an antiques business somewhere?

Mr. Renton: I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. When questions to the Minister for the Arts were last before the House, the hon. Gentleman was missing. On that occasion he had tabled a question on support for Welsh National Opera. I am sorry that we missed him on that occasion. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will consider carefully the hon. Gentleman's question and go on to consider whether he should add to the beautiful objects in No. 10, change them or whatever. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to act as artistic adviser to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Fisher: What contribution does the Minister expect the business community to make to the arts in London, precisely? Does he expect it to bail out the Government


from their incompetent handling of the future of Greater London Arts? He will know that the director of GLA left last week and that it has no finance director, music officer or literature officer. What does the right hon. Gentleman propose for the 200-odd clients of GLA and for all the London music societies that are left without funding? Will he give them to the business community or will he do something himself to save the arts in London?

Mr. Renton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on retaining his position as shadow Minister for the Arts. I was rather fearful that we might have heard him call "crisis" from the Opposition Front Bench for the last time, and that he might be concentrating on his full-time duty as minute secretary of his notorious supper club. It is good to hear him in comparable voice. There is no crisis in London arts and there is no need for them to be bailed out. The hon. Gentleman will know that the London Arts Board has been set up as an autonomous committee within the Arts Council. That is how it will be run for a maximum of two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Trade Unions

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of trade unions in the civil service to discuss the role of trade unions within the civil service.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Tim Renton): We have not yet met to discuss civil service issues, but I intend to follow the practice of my predecessors and meet civil service trade union representatives whenever necessary.

Mr. Winnick: The Minister used to enjoy baiting trade unions when he was a Conservative Back-Bench Member. Is he aware that the continued ban on trade union membership at GCHQ is entirely unacceptable to Opposition Members? We shall never accept that British people should be denied their right to belong to a trade union. Will Tory Members have the guts to oppose my ten-minute Bill, which I shall introduce next week, the purpose of which is to attempt to reverse the present position?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman does me a disservice and his memory a considerable error. I have never baited a trade unionist in my life. I have been a member of the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, like the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), for about 10 years. From time to time I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would lend me his APEX tie so that I could wear it on suitable occasions. There is no change in the Government's position on GCHQ. I doubt, therefore, whether any of my colleagues will support the Bill that the hon. Gentleman intends to introduce next week. Affiliation by the Government Communications Staff Federation at Cheltenham to any outside bodies would not be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a civil service union affiliates to an organisation such as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, it is giving a clear signal to all its members, and especially to those who work

in the Ministry of Defence, that it is putting the interests of the discredited dogma held by a minority of left-wing activists ahead of the need to represent the legitimate interests of all its members?

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend advances his argument extremely well. I am sure that the leaders of the union concerned will carefully consider his remarks.

Te Gulf

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what estimate he has of the number of civil servants who have been allocated to duties relating to the Gulf.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the range of duties performed by civil servants—covering work as diverse as assistance to evacuees and shipping policy—makes it difficult to prepare an estimate of the kind he describes. A great many civil servants in the Ministry of Defence are involved in all aspects of work relating to the crisis, where civilian staff play a key role in support of the armed forces. I understand that outside the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the numbers of staff allocated specifically to Gulf duties are very small.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister a question of which I gave his Department somewhat short notice? How many civil servants are involved in the operation to clean up the oil slicks? I put this question in the light of the fact that David Olsen, who is the environment adviser to the Saudi Government, has complained about both lack of personnel and of equipment.

Mr. Renton: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman were to condemn unequivocally the Gulf oil spill as a deliberate crime against the planet. I have checked in Hansard the reports of his previous remarks, and I do not see that he has uttered any such condemnation, which I should have thought appropriate. As he knows, the United Kingdom Government made a quick response to this oil spill. We shall listen to requests from neighbouring Arab states for help. In particular, we should welcome offers from any non-combatant countries to help clean up the Gulf oil spill.

Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the congratulations of the House are conveyed, in particular, to those civil servants who are involved in defence procurement? These people have had to work considerable hours, and under some pressure, to ensure that our forces in the Gulf receive their supplies—no doubt, hindered to a considerable extent by the cowardly refusal of the Belgian Government to ensure that we do have some defence supplies.

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall certainly see that his very well deserved congratulations on the work being done and on the hours being put in are passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Trade Unions

Mr. Fisher: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met representatives of civil service unions to discuss the improvement of morale and conditions of service.

Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he next plans to meet civil service trade unions to discuss morale.

Mr. Renton: We have not yet met to discuss civil service issues, but I intend to follow the practice of my predecessors and meet civil service trades union representatives as appropriate.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister accept that the working conditions of civil service trade unionists working in the national museums would be improved considerably if there were not holes in the roofs of those buildings? Let him tell the civil service trade unions that he will accept the findings of the report on the fabric of the national museums—a report which he commissioned—and will commit the necessary funds to the removal of this national disgrace. It is indeed a national disgrace that there are holes in the roofs of our great national museums.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman totally misstates the case. Having visited a number of the national museums, I cannot say that I found in any of them civil servants who are unhappy with their working conditions. Indeed, those employees are rather excited by the changes that are taking place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have commissioned a survey by the building firm Ove Arup, which is to report to me the estimates for repairs. That report will be in my hands by the summer and I shall consider very carefully indeed the figures that it contains.

Mr. Allen: The Minister will be aware of the problems relating to over-payments, dubious payments and various other irregularities in respect of the sale of the Crown Suppliers transport section. Will he comment on the activities of Mr. Bill Pinkney in respect of the sale of that transport section, so that all these irregularities may be laid bare to the House and the public? Will he make a statement on this matter?

Mr. Renton: No. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if he seriously wishes to pursue this matter he puts in a letter to me all the facts and figures that are in his possession. If he does that, I shall look at those facts and figures very carefully.

Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the morale and conditions of civil servants would be much enhanced if many of them were to move to Teesside? Would not it be in the Government's interests to ensure that the Ministry of Defence did not renege on its promise to move 1,500 jobs to Teesside, but allowed its civil servants to take advantage of the excellent living conditions there?

Mr. Renton: As my hon. Friend knows, the policy of relocating civil servants to places outside London is being implemented vigorously. For example, the Inland Revenue is moving in a substantial way to the constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).

I shall certainly look into the point about Teesside with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If he writes to me giving further details, I shall pursue them.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister also discuss with Locate in Scotland the possibility of relocating civil service jobs to Caithness, in the light of the changing circumstances there? Undoubtedly it will have a beneficial effect on the morale and conditions of service for the select few who might be induced to go there. Locate in Scotland has not been as active as some of us would have wished.

Mr. Renton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to pursue that matter with Ministers at the Scottish Office. I remember during my time at the Home Office that people in many parts of the United Kingdom suggested that we should move, for example, an immigration office or passport office to their area. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that a particular site in Caithness would be suitable, I suggest that he makes that known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: When my right hon. Friend meets the trade union leaders, will he congratulate the many volunteers who act as shop stewards and unpaid officers of the unions? Will he also raise participation rates in the elections for national officers of civil service unions, which are among the lowest in the country? Will he consider whether it is the employers' job to draw to the attention of staff the dates of elections rather than to tell them who to vote for?

Mr. Renton: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He speaks as my immediate predecessor as president of the Conservative trade unionists. I know that he has a great interest in trade union matters. I thank him for his suggestion. I shall certainly pass on his congratulations and ensure that the matters that he raised are looked into.

Dr. Marek: Might I for the first time agree with the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that it would, indeed, be good to move civil servants out of London? Does the Minister agree that temporary and transient help by way of bridging loans should be given to civil servants who are asked to move? Has the Minister met the unions to discuss the matter? Is he aware that the Minister of State, Treasury will not meet the unions to talk about bridging loans? The right hon. Gentleman has given me an assurance that he is prepared to talk to the unions on the matter. Does he believe that help should be given by way of bridging loans to union members who are asked to move on public service?

Mr. Renton: First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that four out of five civil servants are now located outside Greater London and that relocation of civil servants outside London is continuing. His point about bridging loans to cover moving costs is not an easy matter, as he will understand. It is always difficult to determine when the loan should be repaid. I am sure that in any major relocation the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary of the Department involved will consider carefully whether such loans could be justified and whether they should make a case to the Treasury for such loans to be made.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I will take it after the statement.

The Gulf

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With the permission of the House, I should like to make a statement about the Gulf.
The announcement by the Iraqi Revolutionary Command Council on 15 February stated Iraq's readiness
to deal with Security Council Resolution 660 with the aim of reaching an honourable and acceptable political solution, including withdrawal".
The announcement clearly and explicitly links an undertaking by Iraq on withdrawal to a series of conditions. These include the withdrawal of Israel from occupied Arab territory, the withdrawal of coalition troops from the Gulf within one month, reparations for damage done to Iraq, the cancellation of Iraq's debts, the repeal of all Security Council resolutions passed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the guarantee of Iraq's territorial claims.
It is clear that the Revolutionary Command Council's announcement does not commit Iraq to unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait, as required by the United Nations Security Council either in resolution 660 or in the later ones, nor to the implementation of the other resolutions passed by the Security Council since 2 August. The announcement was rejected by the meeting of Foreign Ministers of Egypt, Syria and the Gulf Co-operation Council in Cairo. It was also rejected by the great majority of speakers in the United Nations Security Council on 16 February. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, it was totally inadequate as a basis for ending the war. The aggressor cannot expect to set conditions for remedying the aggression.
What the world now requires is an unequivocal commitment by Iraq to withdraw its forces fully and unconditionally from Kuwait. When the Iraqi Government are ready to comply with the mandatory resolutions of the Security Council, they should say so unambiguously and match their words with decisive and irreversible proof. There needs to be clear evidence of withdrawal and of a commitment to repatriate allied prisoners of war.
Today, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Mr. Tariq Aziz, is in Moscow. President Gorbachev has made it clear that the Soviet Union stands firmly behind the coalition and the resolutions of the Security Council. I hope that Mr. Tariq Aziz will take back to Baghdad the clear message that Iraq can decide when the fighting will stop by taking the steps that I have described.
The Security Council will continue its debate after the discussions in Moscow. I urge the Iraqi leadership quickly to put to an end the anxiety and suffering which their continued intransigence is causing to the people of Kuwait, to the people of Iraq and to the whole world.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the Foreign Secretary for responding to our request for a statement. Our determination to insist upon the strict fulfilment of the United Nations resolutions requiring Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from all of Kuwait begins to be vindicated, first, by Iraq's citing of resolution 660, and, secondly, by the fact that Iraq, for the first time since the crisis began more than six months ago, is referring to withdrawal of its forces from Kuwait.
It remains unclear exactly what Iraq meant in the statement issued by Baghdad radio on Friday, and augmented by informal statements by Tariq Aziz and the Iraqi ambassadors to the United Nations and to Paris.
As far as the Labour party is concerned, what is certain is that if the list of issues accompanying the Baghdad statement is a list of conditions to be carried out before or parallel with withdrawal, those conditions are totally unacceptable, since resolution 660, to which radio Baghdad referred, requires unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. If it is a list of the issues which Iraq believes should be discussed after withdrawal, certain of the isues are again unacceptable. Other matters, such as the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, should certainly be discussed at the international conference foreshadowed by Security Council resolution 681, but they are certainly not matters to be negotiated bilaterally with Iraq and cannot be linked to Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait.
Therefore, we await developments following the Moscow talks and welcome the repeated Soviet insistence upon strict Iraqi implementation of Security Council resolutions.
If the Soviet plan or any other reliable actions and verifiable statements confirm or bring about, without any doubt whatever, Iraqi acceptance of the UN resolutions, and if Iraq then complies with the Baker-Bessmertnykh conditions, by commencing withdrawal from Kuwait in a manner verified by and acceptable to the commanders of the coalition forces, will such action receive a response from the coalition? The United States Secretary of State, Mr. James Baker, and the United States Defence Department have indicated as much and I shall be grateful for confirmation by the Foreign Secretary.
The whole House will deeply regret continuing Iraqi civilian casualties, including the loss of life at Fallujah. We hope that every possible effort will be made to avoid further such occurrences. I think that the Royal Air Force deserves credit for openly acknowledging the tragic error which caused casualties at Fallujah. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if such unhappy mistakes are made, it is better to do what the Royal Air Force has done and admit them and seek to avoid their recurrence rather than seek ways to justify them? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that further casualties on both sides can be avoided if Iraq plainly and simply accepts the Security Council resolutions and, without further delay and without conditions, withdraws from Kuwait? Our support for those resolutions is firm and determined. Let them now be carried out.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the general tone of what he said. On his three specific points, I chose my words carefully as regards compliance. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that Iraq is required by the Security Council to accept immediately and unconditionally the withdrawal of all its forces. That obviously requires not just an assurance but decisive and irreversible proof. I said that there needs to be clear evidence of withdrawal and of a commitment to repatriate allied prisoners of war.
The right hon. Gentleman dealt rightly with the casualties at Al-Fallujah. Every effort is made by the RAF, and indeed by all the allied forces, to minimise civilian


casualties. I agree with what he said about the correct handling of the issue by the RAF. I also agree with the third point that he made.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the vast majority of the people want to see a solution which ensures that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi council cannot do again what they have done over the past few months? That needs to be an absolute factor when the war is over. It will receive the support of the vast majority of the people.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. We receive continuing evidence from all over the country that, despite all the efforts by Saddam Hussein to confuse and divide us, people are clear about the objectives, which are worth while. We are now entering the decisive and most difficult phase. It is a great strength to our forces in the desert that they have the support which is illustrated in the House and in the country.

Sir David Steel: Should not Her Majesty's Government make clear and repeat their determination to deal with some of the important matters mentioned in the Baghdad statement, and also make clear that the sooner Saddam's forces leave Kuwait, the sooner that process can begin? Should we not at least welcome the Iraqi mention of withdrawal from Kuwait as a change from the rhetoric of its being the 19th province of Iraq and demand that he turns his verbal translation into action?

Mr. Hurd: We made it clear, long before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, that the international community had to return, for example, to the Arab-Israel question. The right hon. Gentleman and I have often discussed that. That remains true. The Iraqis and Saddam Hussein have no particular standing in this. Their attempts to link the two questions have been repudiated by their fellow Arabs. We must not get into a position where we start negotiating with Saddam Hussein on that matter. Our determination, indeed our will, to deal with it is not in doubt.
It is certainly true that the Iraqi statement on 15 February appeared to begin a retreat from the statement that Kuwait is the 19th province of Iraq, but what it does not do is comply with what the United Nations required. Therefore, I believe that it is right for the President of the United States, for our Prime Minister and for all the leading members of the coalition to make it clear that it is not an acceptable basis for ending the war.

Mr. David Howell: While all the analysis goes on in Moscow, Tehran and, indeed, the United Nations about what Baghdad does or does not mean by its latest statement, is there not one clear way in which Saddam Hussein can indicate his intentions to the coalition and that is by physically withdrawing his forces across the Iraqi frontier, requesting to the allies that. in the light of a genuine withdrawal, he is not bombed, and proceeding to comply in detail and in action with the resolutions of the United Nations?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend has it exactly right. I hope that that is the message which Mr. Tariq Aziz will take back to Baghdad from Moscow.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Foreign Secretary give a clear assurance that no British forces will be committed to a ground attack on Kuwait or Iraq until

all reasonable efforts have been made, and all reasonable time has been given, to ensuring that Iraq undertakes a negotiated compliance with the United Nations resolution?

Mr. Hurd: Reasonable time was given—between the date of resolution 660 that was passed as the Iraqi troops poured into Kuwait and 15 January, the deadline set by the Security Council at the instance of the Soviet Union. No one can argue that that is not "reasonable time". The timing of any ground attack must depend on when those concerned believe that an attack can be made to liberate Kuwait in accordance with the United Nations, in circumstances that create the minimum number of casualties.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend highlight the number of Islamic nations that have committed forces to the coalition? Does not that number give the lie to Saddam Hussein's claim to speak for Islam?

Mr. Hurd: Indeed; and it is notable, as I said in my statement, that eight of the leading Arab members of the coalition—let alone Muslims—who met in Cairo on Friday were quick to declare exactly the same answer to the statement that came out of Baghdad as we did.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his statement left out some important facts? One is the fact that other countries saw this development in a more positive way than did the President of the United States or the Prime Minister. Secondly, clarifications have come since then, which might have been spelt out but which the Foreign Secretary did not spell out. Thirdly, the President and the Prime Minister gave a summary judgment on the matter without waiting for the Security Council, which is supposed to be the body masterminding the operation. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that, with these hopes still being explored in Moscow, a land attack is thought right-at this moment, when there is a possibility of a peaceful settlement?

Mr. Hurd: Part of the aim of the Baghdad statement must have been to divide the coalition; those who issued it must be bitterly disappointed with the result. With one possible exception—Morocco—all members of the coalition, and all who are contributing to the effort, were clear about the fact that the offer was inadequate. Since then, various efforts have been made to qualify it. The Iraqi authorities themselves sent me the text of the statement, with an English translation, in which they referred to Iraq's readiness "to deal with"—not "accept"—"resolution 660 … including withdrawal". They then said that the first step required to implement Iraq's pledge
regarding withdrawal will be linked to the following".
Any suggestion that there is no linkage, or that the Iraqis have accepted resolution 660, is completely refuted by the Iraqis' own translation of their own document. Any attempt to qualify that is obfuscation.
What we need now is a further clear, unconditional announcement, backed up by the kind of concrete steps—and the decisive proof that the things concerned are actually happening—to which I have referred. I do not think that, in the present circumstances, it would be at all sensible or right for us to be deflected from the operations. This may well be an attempt to gain time—to enable Saddam Hussein to reinforce and re-equip the army of aggression, the military machine now sitting in the desert


and occupying Kuwait. I cannot think that even the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would think it sensible to fall into that trap.

Mr. Paul Channon: First, has my right hon. Friend any more news about British military personnel in Iraqi hands, about whom there is much disquiet? Secondly, does he think that it is still appropriate for television correspondents to be in Baghdad when the news that we are receiving from them is clearly influenced largely by Iraqi Government propaganda? That is causing massive disquiet among our constituents.

Mr. Hurd: We are very much exercised by the first point. One of the cruellest things that the Iraqis have done is to give certain information about allied prisoners of war, with no corroboration or information being given through the proper channels in accordance with the Geneva conventions, to us and the relatives of those concerned. We are pressing the president of the Red Cross daily on that subject: we pressed him hard when he was in London a few days ago. It is not his fault that the Iraqis have denied access, but it is a particularly cruel breach of their obligations.
As for journalists, that must be a matter for the broadcasters and newspapers concerned. This is one of the things that distinguishes us from the regime with which we are dealing. It is very important that those broadcasters and newspapers that send journalists to Baghdad should ensure, in the case of anything published—whether in print or on the screen—that the public are fully aware of the restrictions on what they are able to do, of the restrictions on what they are saying and, perhaps even more important, of the restrictions on what they are not able to see and do. The Government have made that crucial point—I think perfectly correctly—to those concerned.

Dr. David Owen: May we be, assured that international measures to assure peace and security in the region are absolutely vital before sanctions can be lifted, even if there were to be, thankfully, a total and unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait? Would that mean on-site inspection of any nuclear, biological or chemical installations? Would there be a ban on all missiles capable of reaching capitals in the region?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is moving ahead from the circumstances in which fighting might stop, with which I have already dealt, to the circumstances in which sanctions would be raised and normal relationships re-established with Iraq. However, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right—I cannot give specific details this afternoon—that when we move to the second phase and consider how we might restore relations with Iraq, the questions that he mentioned would have to be considered before we did so.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it needs to be reiterated over and over again that if the war is to end and peace is to come it must be on the clear foundation that aggression does not pay? Saddam Hussein must clearly see and learn that his rape of Kuwait will bring no profit to him whatsoever.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right in what he says and the way in which he says it. I entirely support what he says.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the Foreign Secretary at least welcome the Soviet initiative, or is he not looking for a diplomatic solution because he wants the war to spread from Kuwait into Iraq? Is not the bombing of sewage systems, water and medical facilities for Iraqi civilians a breach of the Geneva convention? Will he please reconsider the way in which Iraqi civilians are being denied a decent human life?

Mr. Hurd: I welcome any effort that is designed to bring about an end to this war, through the fulfilment of the United Nations resolutions. We do not have details of any proposals that the Soviet Union may have put to Mr. Tariq Aziz today in Moscow. We are in touch with the Soviet authorities and I discussed the matter with Mr. James Baker just before I came to the House. We do not have those details, but that is the test. It is a test that the Soviet Union has emphasised itself in all its recent exchanges.
As for the second serious point that the hon. Lady raised, the objective of the coalition forces in these operations is to liberate Kuwait, which means weakening and reducing the strength of the Iraqi military forces. That obviously involves communications, logistics, supply lines. Every effort is made to make sure that in attacking those targets—which are perfectly legitimate for the general aim—danger, damage and loss of life to civilians, which cannot be entirely avoided, is kept to a minimum.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is an element of absurdity in seeking to negotiate by means of Baghdad radio? Is it not clear, as my right hon. Friend said, that the elements here suggest that delay, or seeking to divide the allies, is the only reason behind this? Are not there ample opportunities to take the matter where it should go—to the United Nations, where the matter could be discussed in direct diplomatic terms?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. I do not think that one can carry the discussion very far, due to the way in which the revolutionary council started it. If it were willing to come forward not just with an assurance but with proof that the resolutions are being carried out, that would change the situation.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to resist the siren voices of those who want to restrict what journalists in Baghdad publish and transmit. Is he prepared to ask the British media why they are not transmitting more material about the thousands of houses damaged in Israel, the 500 Israeli civilian casualties, the property damaged in Saudi Arabia and the torturing, murdering and crucifixion of Kuwaitis? Is not that what the war is about and should not the British media concentrate on a few more reports on those aspects of the war so that we may have more balanced reports?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, particularly about Kuwait. There was a good deal of publicity about Tel Aviv and Israel, but by far the greatest suffering is being, and has been for many months, inflicted on the people of Kuwait. Plenty of material is available to


journalists, even though they are not allowed to go there. They should make it clear that they are not allowed to go there and make the greatest possible use of existing material.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is it not clear that this frantic fluttering in the diplomatic dovecotes every time Saddam Hussein throws us a crumb can only lead him to suppose that our determination to defeat him is not complete, with the result that the war will continue and even more lives will be lost?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's realistic assessment of what has happened so far. If Iraq's will to fight is crumbling to the point where it withdraws from Kuwait, the position will change. However, my hon. and learned Friend is right to say that there is no evidence, as of today, that that is happening.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the past 10 minutes, he has put forward two possibilities for Baghdad's statement on Friday: first, it may have been designed to split the coalition and, secondly, it may have been designed to engineer a ceasefire so that Iraq could re-equip its military forces for a continuation of the conflict? Is there not a third possibility, that the Iraqi regime may be signalling that it wants a way out of the difficulty in which it has placed itself?

Mr. Hurd: The first two possibilities, although not contradictory, are more likely than the third. Let us suppose, however, that the hon. Gentleman is right. In the past few days, to put the matter beyond doubt, the main leaders of the coalition have sketched how Iraq would act.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any person who is uncertain about the imperative need for military action in Kuwait should re-read the Amnesty International report, which makes it clear that the Iraqi Government have been using torture and murder as weapons of state? Will he encourage journalists to re-read that document and give it further publicity?

Mr. Hurd: Indeed. That document is now some weeks old. However, journalists should also go to Taif or the eastern province and listen to Kuwaitis whose cousins and nephews have been shot in the past few weeks for no crime but simply as part of the business of destroying Kuwait and torturing its people. There are plenty of anecdotes that can be checked and proved. Such an element is missing from much of the reporting.

Mr. David Winnick: If we should all be concerned about innocent people being killed in bombing raids on Iraq, as I am, should we not be concerned about the continuing atrocities that have been carried out in Kuwait—deliberately, not by mistake—by the occupying forces since 2 August? Despite the rhetoric from Baghdad, is it not clear that either Saddam Hussein leaves Kuwait with no ifs, buts or conditions of any kind, or the allies will get him out? The choice is entirely up to him, and I imagine that there is little time left for him to make that choice.

Mr. Hurd: As usual, on this subject, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the vast majority of people entirely support his

analysis of and conclusions about the message received last Friday? Does it reveal any split in the Iraqi Government in terms of their attitude towards the war?

Mr. Hurd: There has been speculation, it is tempting speculation, but I am afraid that we have no evidence to sustain it.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any comment to make on today's statement from the BBC monitoring unit at Caversham that it misinterpreted its first translation of the statement, but today it has made it clear that there is no linkage to conditions? For the first time, Saddam Hussein has recognised the existence of Kuwait and talked about withdrawal. Would it not have been better to seize upon his comment, build on it and widen it rather than to continue the slaughter?

Mr. Hurd: I have tried to help the hon. Gentleman. I prefer to rely on the translation that the Iraqis have given me. It proves two points beyond doubt: first, that the Iraqis do not accept resolution 660—they talk simply about their readiness to "deal" with it—and, secondly, that a pledge by Iraq about withdrawal "will be linked". That is the Iraqi translation into English of their statement. It puts the point beyond doubt.

Mr. Chris Butler: Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that, when it comes to repatriation of Iraqi prisoners of war, Iraqi deserters will not be rendered up to Saddam Hussein or to the Baath party?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. When the time comes, that will be one of the necessary complications of the matter.

Miss Kate Hoey: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Pentagon believes that the Al-Rashid hotel in Bagdad has a military bunker? Is he further aware that that is where the journalists who are covering the war in Iraq, in difficult circumstances, are living? Can the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that the Al-Rashid hotel will not be bombed?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the House would expect me to pronounce on that matter. It is clear, and was clear for a long time before the fighting began, that Saddam Hussein has no compunction about placing innocent people in positions of great danger.

Mr. David Tredinnick: My right hon. Friend may not be aware that a constituent of mine is so incensed by the BBC coverage of propaganda from Iraq that he has described the BBC as the Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation. Will my right hon. Friend issue further guidance on this aspect?

Mr. Hurd: The BBC is well aware of the reactions to its reporting. We have drawn the BBC's attention to the point that I specifically mentioned. We have also drawn its attention to the point made forcefully to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Germany by service families about the amount of operational reporting. We thought it right to make those two points to the BBC.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Is it not a fact that all Saddam Hussein's diplomatic objectives over the past month have resulted in failure? He has tried to involve Israel in the war by launching Scud missiles attacks on Tel


Aviv and Haifa. He has tried to detach the forces of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria from the coalition. He has tried to involve Iran by sending his MiGs over its soil. Now he has tried to detach the Soviet Union from supporting the United Nations resolutions. He has failed in all four.
Is it not a fact that, since the beginning, the Soviet Union has been firm in its support of the United Nations and its resolutions? If the Soviet Union now uses its influence on its erstwhile friend and ally, Iraq, so that it complies fully with resolution 660, is that not the best for which we can hope in this situation?

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point. One of the things that slightly irritates me about several of the commentaries that we must read or listen to is their portrayal of Saddam Hussein as a subtle and clever operator who is constantly outwitting us. As the hon. Gentleman said, he has tried just about every means available to him to divide the coalition, but has failed. I am constantly being told that the coalition is about to split up or dissolve, but it has not done so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: I do not think that it will.

Sir Bernard Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Members are receiving letters expressing revulsion for the broadcasts from Baghdad which cannot be ignored? There is a war on, appalling atrocities have been committed, and, while we are awaiting Saddam Hussein's withdrawal from Kuwait, is not it possible for the media to give some expression to the relatives of the Kuwaitis who have suffered torture and execution and appalling damage to their property by the occupiers?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. That point has come through strongly in the House today, in letters from our constituents and in our comments.

Mr. David Trimble: Contrary to the view expressed by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), I get the impression that within the Soviet system this weekend there was a certain amount of backsliding on this issue, as on other issues. Will the Foreign Secretary make it absolutely clear that any Soviet initiative that might be forthcoming will be regarded solely in terms of whether it fulfils the United Nations resolutions and that no question of giving help to Mr. Gorbachev to achieve diplomatic success will enter the picture? Given the difficulty that Mr. Gorbachev seems to have had in recent months controlling his military and security forces, I should like to be assured that measures will be taken to ensure that there is no surreptitious aid from the Soviet military to Iraq.

Mr. Hurd: Those are all fair points. At the Security Council, the Soviet Union has been among the most active in bringing about these resolutions, including the last one, and in insisting that they be fulfilled. Clearly President Gorbachev wishes to be active and agile in trying to find ways to peace. He and his representatives at the United Nations have, set the test, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must apply it.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: What exactly does my right hon. Friend think that Mr. Gorbachev is up to with Mr. Tariq Aziz in Moscow? In this age of glasnost, does not it seem a little strange that the Soviet Union has

not sent London or Washington any details of the peace plan that Mr. Aziz is supposed to be taking back to Baghdad? In the absence of those details, is my right hon. Friend confident that they do not involve any backsliding on the United Nations resolutions?

Mr. Hurd: President Gorbachev wishes to keep the door open for Soviet diplomacy to produce a breakthrough—he certainly has that intention—and is trying all the time to find a way of doing that. The test that my hon. Friend would like to apply is the test that the Soviet Union has set. That is why I am reasonably confident that any proposals that it produces will fall within the Security Council resolutions that it helped to put forward.

Mr. William Powell: Although it is encouraging to note that Iraq, a member state of the United Nations, has at last noticed the existence of Security Council resolution 660, which was passed on 2 August, does my right hon. Friend accept that events have moved on and that there have been 11 further United Nations resolutions, the most important of which is not 660 but 678, which lays down the objectives of the withdrawal from Kuwait of the occupying force, the re-establishment of legitimate government and the restoration of peace and stability to the area?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Secretary Council resolutions have, as it were, built on each other. Resolution 660, which we are still waiting to be accepted, mentioned immediate and unconditional withdrawal.

Mr. Stuart Randall: Is not the reality of the situation that we cannot be deflected by nonsensical and absurd peace proposals and statements from Baghdad but must adhere to the UN resolutions, that we must get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and that there can be no linkage? There have been 50,000, 60,000 or 70,000 sorties, yet the number of innocent people killed has been minimal. We should compliment the Royal Air Force on its performance.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is right in everything he said. I do not suppose that there has been any campaign in modern warfare which has been so deliberately and successfully targeted on the objectives, which are those of the United Nations.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is no difference between us in our determination that Iraq should withdraw from Kuwait? The difference is about whether that can be achieved without the casualties that would result from a ground war. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the word "conditions" does not occur either in the Arabic or in the English text of his translation? Would not it be a disaster if troops were committed to a ground battle because of a failure to communicate and a mistranslation?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that there is any question of a mistranslation. If someone proposes to the hon. Gentleman transaction A and says that it is linked with transaction B, that is a condition.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark (Birmingham, Selly Oak): Does my right hon. Friend accept that if Saddam Hussein did not think that allowing BBC, ITN and CNN


reporters to stay in Baghdad was a good idea, he would have them out tomorrow? Is it not time that the Government and all Governments of the free world told those so-called news reporters that they should get out instead of being part of Baghdad's propaganda service?

Mr. Hurd: I should not go as far as that, but it is crucial that no one listening to or reading reports from Baghdad should suppose that they are listening to or reading the reports of unfettered journalists. They are not. I believe that it is essential that all those concerned take not just the occasional opportunity but every opportunity to make that clear.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the American people receive far more factual Gulf information than we do from the BBC and ITN? Some of the hysteria on the Conservative Benches is now also occurring in Congress where they are calling for the banning of CNN and NBC reporting. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there will be no further pressure on the BBC, as reported in the Daily Mail today, to curtail the provision of factual information to the British people so that they can judge for themselves what is being done in their name?

Mr. Hurd: I think that I have already answered that point. We are winning the argument in this country and throughout the coalition. We have no reason to be frightened of the argument or all the bits and pieces that go into the argument. The people who should be recoiling from the discussion are those who are losing. Those of us who argue in favour of collective security and the operation and against falling into the deceptions practised out of Baghdad are carrying opinion with us. It is because there is an open debate which we are winning that I have confidence in what we are saying.

Mr. Robert Adley: When my right hon. Friend mentioned a moment ago what people hear and read, he omitted—I am sure inadvertently—to mention what they see. I do not share the demand for general censorship, but does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to deal with the problem on television would be to invite the broadcasting authorities, whenever they have reports from their reporters in Baghdad, to put the word "censored" in the top left-hand corner of the box so that everyone who is watching will be reminded that they are seeing censored material? That would not prevent the material from being shown, but people would constantly have that reminder before them.
I stayed in room 1311 at the A1-Rashid hotel. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) that the proposition that merely walking into the basement of the hotel enables one to know whether it is a command bunker is ludicrous? If it is, it is unlikely that the Iraqi military using it would walk through the lobby in uniform.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend was on the right path in the first part of his question. It is not for me or for us to prescribe exactly how the points should be made. Any information from Baghdad should be labelled for what it is, not just occasionally but at all times. I had better not start analysing the bedrooms or other rooms of the Al-Rashid hotel.

Mr. Harry Cohen: If the Iraqi forces were to commence withdrawal, would they be bombed? Does the Foreign Secretary accept United Nations resolutions 660, which states that those forces could go to the positions that they occupied on 1 August 1990? If so, was not the response of President Bush peculiarly ill judged when he said that the only choice was war and annihilation or the assassination of Saddam Hussein? Does not that show that the war aims go far beyond the liberation of Kuwait and beyond implementing United Nations resolutions?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is entirely distorting what President Bush said, and I heard what President Bush said as well as the hon. Gentleman. President Bush did not say that at all. The Iraqi troops need to withdraw. That is what the United Nations requires. Therefore, a simple assurance to withdraw is not sufficient. We need what I have described as decisive and irreversible proof that that is happening. We are not in that position yet.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents at least regard with considerable admiration the way in which he is conducting his part in this great effort? Does he accept that, with all his skills, it may be very difficult for someone as decent as him or for people as decent as his colleagues in the coalition to understand fully the mind of a paranoid despot like Saddam Hussein? Can he assure us, therefore, that the mechanisms by which Saddam Hussein can be assured that if he withdraws he will not be bombed are foolproof, even against a man as paranoid as Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Hurd: Exactly. My hon. Friend is quite right. That is why it would have been a mistake for me to be too specific in answering an earlier question. We have to make quite sure that withdrawal is withdrawal and not a pretext for regrouping.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that his statement is three days late? It should have been made on Friday because the decision to withdraw in accordance with United Nations resolution 660 was made at 11.30 am and a statement was made suggesting that the Foreign Secretary would make a statement to the House. One is driven to the conclusion that he did not make a statement because he was waiting for President Bush to declare on the issue. Is it not a scandal that the Government are having to kowtow to the Americans before they open their mouth? The moment that President Bush said that it was a cruel hoax, the Prime Minister of Britain said that it was a sham—following in Bush's footsteps from beginning to end. The slaughter is continuing and the Americans are running the war. The United Nations has been left far behind without any consideration.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not hear what was said, but I hope that no unparliamentary expressions were uttered from below the Gangway.

Mr. Hurd: There are two reasons why I did not make a statement on Friday. First, I was meeting farmers in my constituency—which is an entirely respectable occupation—and, secondly, if I had made a statement on Friday morning, I would have done so on the basis of very


incomplete and imperfect reports. That would have been a foolish thing to do. We now have the evidence, and the House can make a judgment.

Mr. Den Dover: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, following the completely unacceptable remarks from Iraq on Friday, the allied forces have no intention of winning the war and then losing the peace?

Mr. Hurd: That is entirely right. My hon. Friend makes the point well.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that he made a serious mistake on Friday by not recognising the statement by Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council as a major step forward? The least that he could have done was to order a halt to the weekend bombing raids which have resulted in even more civilian casualties. He could have shown his true concern for peace in the region by flying to Moscow to meet Tariq Aziz to see whether there was a basis for a political settlement. Did he not do that simply because the war aims have changed to the invasion of Iraq and its total annihilation, as indicated by President Bush at the weekend?

Mr. Hurd: Either the hon. Gentleman lives in a wholly unreal world or he does not want us to reverse the aggression. If any of us had done what the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would have enabled the Iraqis to benefit from a pause in the bombing, and they would have been able to recover and re-equip. How many extra casualties on our side does the hon. Gentleman contemplate we should risk while pursuing this will-o-the-wisp?

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the vast majority of civilian casualties have been caused by the Iraqis, it is nevertheless impossible for us to tackle a war machine the size of the Iraqi army without the risk of some civilian casualties? At this very moment our pilots are taking risks with their lives in order to minimise casualties. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that those in the media who harp on such casualties invite Saddam Hussein to put more civilians into military installations?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right on his first point and puts it very well. My reply to his second point is that in pursuit of his wicked objectives Saddam Hussein seems to need no encouragement from anybody to put his own civilians and prisoners of war and others in danger.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State confirm the disturbing report at the weekend that the Americans have used the fuel-air explosive weapon in bombing raids on Kuwait? Does he know that, according to reports, such a weapon had been in the possession of Saddam Hussein and that it had been sold to him by Industrias Cardoen of Chile? If this terrible weapon is used, is not there a danger that the war will escalate and that Saddam Hussein will be tempted to use weapons that have hitherto not been used in battle? Was the dropping of the fuel-air explosive weapon carried out in collaboration with other members of the coalition?

Mr. Hurd: I am afraid that I cannot comment on that. I have no information.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In the event of Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait and returning prisoners of war, is it the position of the allies that the alleged link conditions and others will be discussed without commitment at some international gathering? Does the Foreign Secretary think that it would be appropriate to pay some small tribute to the Government of Iran for their constructive role? They have played that role even though Iran itself was invaded in almost exactly the same bloodthirsty way by Iraq and received precious little help and sympathy from anyone.

Mr. Hurd: The Government of Iran have announced and, as far as I can see, have held to their declaration of neutrality. They are trying, like the Soviet Union, to produce a peaceful solution, but it has been clear that Iraq must unconditionally withdraw from Kuwait. Iran has been anxious to ensure that Kuwait does not of its own volition make any territorial concessions to Iraq.
My reply to my hon. Friend's first point is that we have always said that certain matters in the Iraqi list will have to be considered. Arab-Israel is, of course, the outstanding one, but there are others. Iraq appears to be making claims against Kuwait, but when United Nations resolution 660 is implemented the Kuwaitis for sure will have massive claims to make against Iraq for the terrorising of their country. Of course there are matters which will have to be discussed when the war is over, but that is quite different from the specific linking in the Iraqi document.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Foreign Secretary a question of straightforward fact? Before the American President and the British Prime Minister dismissed the Iraqi proposals, did they consult either the Security Council or the Secretary-General of the United Nations? Are the young men that we on the Green Benches are sending to be maimed or possibly to die part of a United Nations force, or part of a British and American force? Well, was the United Nations consulted before the British Prime Minister and the American President dismissed the Iraqi proposals? The answer is surely, "Yes, it was" or "No, it was not."

Mr. Hurd: No, it was not consulted because we are operating under United Nations Security Council resolution 678, which authorises member states——

Mr. Dalyell: The United Nations was not consulted.

Mr. Hurd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to the reply. Resolution 678 authorises member states to take whatever means are necessary to implement the resolution. That is perfectly straightforward. Nobody in New York—neither the Secretary-General nor anybody else—expects the allies, who comprise not only Britain and America, but more than 30 nations, to operate in any other way. The Security Council is now debating the matter. As I said in my statement, most of those who spoke in the debate after the Iraqi announcement reacted in the same way as we have.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Inasmuch as a mention by Iraq for the first time of withdrawal, albeit hedged about with many unacceptable conditions, was the direct consequence of the allied naval blockade, air operations and the tightening of the allied army's noose around the Iraqi armed forces within Kuwait, is it not the case that rather than being seduced by a will-o-the-wisp of


diplomacy, Her Majesty's Government, along with the allies, should intensify operations until they reach a successful conclusion?

Mr. Hurd: We have no intention of being deflected from operations unless or until it becomes perfectly clear that the intentions, wishes and requirements of the United Nations are being met—not simply by an assurance that they will be met, but by decisive proof that they are being met.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: As the BBC has itself said that its correspondents are not approved to go where they want in Iraq when they want and that they cannot enter Kuwait, would it not be a good idea if my right hon. Friend could arrange for the dissenters in this House to go to Baghdad to explain the policy of the official Opposition, the policy of the House and the policy of the United Nations and every member of the Security Council, which is that Iraq must get out of Kuwait unconditionally? To hear that explained to the Iraqis by people such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would be a good propaganda coup which the BBC and others would be free to report.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend has lodged that idea; it is for others to take it up.

Mr. Benn: As I have been referred to, may I say that I went to Saddam Hussein and said that, but when I returned the BBC did not even interview me to find out what I had discovered.

Points of Order

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): On a point of order. We look to you, Mr. Speaker, to defend the rights of this House, and I seek your guidance.
This morning two outrages were perpetrated in the capital, one at Paddington station and the other at Victoria. Hon. Members will be desirous of tabling a private notice question, conscious of the fact that those terrorist attacks took place in the constituencies of other hon. Members. Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it might have been more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to have come to the House to explain how Her Majesty's Government intend to defeat terrorism instead of giving statements outside this place to the press and to others?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The point of order was made to me. Although I do not wish this to develop into a statement, I shall call the Minister of State, Home Office to respond.

Mr. Patten: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully understand the strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about this issue, but the decision taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, after consultation through the usual channels, was, first, that to deny terrorists the oxygen of publicity, which would be brought about by ventilating these issues in this place when they are ventilated quite enough in the outside world by the media, was a considerable step that this House could take. Secondly, statements are not made in this House on every occasion when there is a murderous outrage in Northern Ireland. It was for those two reasons that my right hon. Friend took his decision. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood appreciates those reasons.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I was referred to in personal terms, may I explain something? I have fired a gun at a tank and I fear for thousands of young men who might lose their lives. Therefore, I think that people should go in any official capacity to talk about this before endless youngsters are sent to be maimed or——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make that point of order because the House accepts that he holds his view strongly, and he has every right so to do. I hope that, for that reason, no unparliamentary expressions were directed to him.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I fully understand and appreciate the points made by the Minister of State, Home Office and agree that the matter could be dealt with in that way, I feel that we might be more reassured if the Minister would say to us that, at some time, the House will debate the safety of the public in transport systems, both under ground and over ground.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Minister of State Home Office will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: On a point of order Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day ahead of us and I understand——

Mrs. Gorman: rose——

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please sit down; I am on my feet. We have a heavy day ahead of us and we should try to finish the business before 7 o'clock, when we shall have to move on to the opposed private business. I shall hear the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), but I hope that she will be brief.

Mrs. Gorman: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Could the Minister, while he is here, say how, if we are not to discuss the matter of the terrorist outrages perpetrated this morning, he intends to deal with the point raised by my constituents that, by——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot have that. The hon. Lady is making a point with which I cannot deal because it is not a point of order for me. I am sure that her best course would be to see the Minister and get his explanation.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware from the exchanges on the statement that we have just heard that Tariq Aziz is returning to Baghdad with proposals from President Gorbachev. May we have an undertaking from the Government that they will make a further statement on the possibility of obtaining a

ceasefire on the basis of the response to President Gorbachev's initiative for peace, which appears to have been ignored by both the British and American Governments?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that point will have been heard by the Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the five motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&amp;c.
That the draft Agricultural, Fishery and Aquaculture Products (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Standard Community Charge (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 41) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) (No. 2) Amendment Regulationse 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 51) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments,&amp;c.
That the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1990 (S.I., 1990, No. 2564) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That the Matter of Rural Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for is consideration.—[Mr. Patnick]

Point of Order

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard two different statements concerning the media. First, you heard Members deploring what was being said by the BBC and the ITV in Baghdad and Ministers defending the right of the two companies to make such reports. Then we heard that the House should not be allowed to debate the two calamities at Paddington and Victoria. There seem to me to be two interpretations of Standing Orders. Some people believe that it is wrong for the media to be reporting in Baghdad, but that when bombs are set off in London the media should be allowed to report extensively what has happened in Victoria and Paddington, although Parliament has no rights in the matter. Is that a new Standing Order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with Standing Orders. It is a decision by the Government.

Orders of the Day — Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4 34pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that children and adults benefit from secure and stable relationships. Sadly, however, we must all recognise that some marriages and other relationships with children break up. As a result, both parties involved suffer emotionally. They certainly suffer financially. When the Bill has received parliamentary scrutiny—I hope that it will receive some all-party agreement as well—and been enacted, it will have an effect on many men, women and children. If it is enacted—it is my hope, of course, that it will be—some people will be affected extremely beneficially.
The purpose behind the Bill is to concentrate on ensuring that those whom the courts have directed to pay maintenance do so, and do so regularly. Maintenance payments should be made to those who the courts have decided should receive that maintenance. Essentially, that is what the Bill is about.
Children are often found to reside in the middle of matrimonial disputes and disputes where children are involved as a result of relationships where there were no marriages. I think that we all agree that children are almost always innocent and often the injured parties in such break-ups. As each Session passes, more and more is being done by the House to protect children. For example, the Children Act 1989 received much all-party assent, and it is soon to come into force. It has already done an enormous amount to forward the cause of children.
Secondly, there is the Criminal Justice Bill, important clauses of which concern the proper protection of child victims in court following the report of Judge Pigot. Again, that Bill will greatly help the cause of children. It will come before us for its first day of consideration on Report on Wednesday. The provisions to which I have referred have been widely welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I know in particular that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has a long-standing interest in these matters, which we all respect.
Thirdly, there is the critically important Child Support Bill, which has come from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and was introduced in another place on Thursday of last week.
All in all, the three measures, plus the short but important Bill before us, represent an integrated package to try to help and better the position of children who are so often caught in so many different ways and who are almost always entirely innocent parties.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Patten: I give way to my hon. Friend with great pleasure.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: As someone who practised in the divorce courts, it seems to me that in divorce courts the agony that is experienced by children lies in the prolongation of the arguments that turn on them. They are treated almost like dogs quarrelling over a bone when they are caught up in the middle of a dispute. That is a tragedy.
The position of children when disputes take place will be improved by the Bills that are before this place and another place. If the Maintenance Enforcement Bill is enacted, women will know that moneys will be coming to them. That will enable them to build a life for themselves without having to apply for social security and without having moneys docked. It is clear that the Bill is extremely important for women.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has considerable interest in these matters. I am sure that she knows more about civil law and divorce law than someone such as myself, who is neither a barrister nor a solicitor. My hon. Friend is right, if I may say so, when she holds that it is delay in settlement that so often harms children. They are harmed also when they are caught within what seem to be never-ending wrangles about whether the absent partner—it is usually the man, but sometimes it is the woman—should pay, should pay so much and should pay on certain dates. That harm often continues until the issues are sorted out by the courts.
It would be a mistake to regard the Bill—I know that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) would not do this—as purely about financial provision. That might, however, be the view of some outside this place. The Bill's provisions will, of course, have an effect on the regularity of financial provision, but ensuring that that provision is adequate and that it is paid regularly will have a material and beneficial effect on children as they go through the appalling traumas that sometimes face them during marital break-down or the break-down of a relationship. That is why we have tried to assist those who have to struggle on by themselves economically after fragmentation of a family bond. That is why we have created a maintenance system to try to help families. I have in mind the work that has been done by the Department of Social Security, including that carried out by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who is in his place on the Government Front Bench. Like any system, however, the maintenance system can always be improved.
As I have just said, the Child Support Bill, whose purpose is to help deal with exactly this issue, has just been introduced in another place. That Bill, when it is enacted, will radically alter the system of child maintenance. This Bill does not make such radical changes. Its purpose is rather more simple: to improve maintenance collection and enforcement in England and Wales—in particular, by giving new powers to the courts to help to ensure that payments are made regularly. We all know that regularity of payment is often just as important as the size of the award. Maintenance is no good to its intended recipient unless it is received—and received regularly, so that people may plan properly for themselves and their children. That is the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) referred, and I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) agrees that it is an important issue.
This Bill is being given a Second Reading at a time when another and much larger piece of legislation, in the shape of the Child Support Bill, is waiting in the parliamentary wings—if one may refer to another place as the wings. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall allude briefly to the Child Support Bill. As those hon. Members who have studied the White Paper "Children Come First" know, the purpose of that Bill is to make changes to only one area of maintenance—child maintenance. The Child Support Bill will affect the whole area of child maintenance. That is its importance to children. It will deal with assessment, collection and the very important matter of enforcement. On the other hand, the very much smaller Bill that we are considering today is limited to collection and enforcement improvements. However, it will affect all maintenance orders—spousal as well as child maintenance.
Further—subject to parliamentary approval—the child support agency, which will be set up to administer the legislation, will come into full effect only in April 1996. The provisions of the legislation are expected to be relevant as interim measures until the function of child maintenance collection is completely absorbed by the child support agency. But the Bill will continue to be vital in respect of maintenance orders relating to spouses but not children. It will continue to be of fundamental importance. I can imagine no circumstances arising in the next few decades in which we might want to change it in respect of the collection of maintenance for spouses.
I am sure that, like me, all other hon. Members understand the emotional difficulties and distress that arise when relationships break down. However, though one might try to understand people who run away from their responsibilities, one has to recognise it as a simple fact that far too many people who are obliged to pay maintenance fail to do so. They evade payment in a cold and calculating way, and for as long as possible. They play the maintenance avoidance game with considerable cleverness and exceptional aptitude. It is true that sometimes things go wrong, and the absent spouse finds it impossible to pay as much as he or she would like. I realise that there are some absent spouses who would like to make greater contributions but are unable to do so. On the other hand, there are those who—to use the jargon of government—take a policy decision to go as far as they can and to pay as little as possible towards the upkeep of their children. I find that very difficult indeed to understand. It is those people—not the ones who need help—that this Bill is intended to deal with, in the interests of spouses as well as of children.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I totally agree with the principle that the Minister has just stated. I should like, however, to draw attention to a practical problem. Take the case of a man who remarries and has children by his second wife. Often such a man is under terrific pressure from the second wife and the children of the second marriage because of the maintenance order in respect of the first marriage. The wife and children of the second marriage may actually be living in poverty. I accept what the Minister has said about the need for a sense of responsibility, but I should like to know how he views this practical problem.

Mr. Patten: That emotional pressure can be very great indeed. I hope that it will be possible, during the debate on


the Child Support Bill, to examine such issues in rather greater detail. I realise that there may be great emotional pressures, but surely anyone who has taken on the responsibility of children should use all his endeavours to ensure that his responsibilities are met. Great acrimony can arise from responsibilities to a second wife or husband, but the children, who are in the middle, should not have to suffer. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware not just of the economic deprivation but of the emotional turmoil sometimes caused by marital breakdown.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Under this Bill, if I understand it correctly, the first charge on the absent parent's income—after tax and national insurance—will be his or her own living standards, followed by the second family, in preference to the first. Can my right hon. Friend clarify the situation?

Mr. Patten: That matter will undoubtedly be discussed in Committee. In addition, my hon. Friend may want to refer to it during our consideration of the Child Support Bill—the much bigger piece of legislation that was introduced in another place last Thursday.
I shall give a few figures with a view to putting some flesh on the bones of the economic and social problems facing those who fail to receive the maintenance that the courts have decided they should have. In 1989—I apologise to the House for the fact that the 1990 figures were not available—there were more than 80,000 enforcement actions in magistrates courts. Generally a woman—occasionally a man; sometimes a guardian or parent—has to go to court to secure enforcement of a maintenance order. In 1989, many such proceedings were abortive. All too frequently debtors pay their arrears at the last moment because of the threat of the court hanging over them. What happens in the intervening period? Children, mothers and fathers are put under considerable pressure, and the time and money of courts are wasted. That must stop.
In the rather bureaucratic language "This causes a great waste of court resources" lurk many of the delay problems that one encounters in the magistrates courts. It is entirely wrong that people should play the maintenance system and delay payments. It causes many problems for the courts. The Bill specifically targets those people who attempt to exploit the loopholes in the current system, or who are too disorganised or lazy, or simply too bad, to make regular support payments. Any reasonable means that can be found to foil maintenance default deserves the support of the House.
I shall give one example from the 80,000 cases that went to magistrates courts in 1989. That figure does not necessarily mean 80,000 individual people, because on some occasions people had to go to court more than once in the calendar year. The worst example that I found—it is not much worse than some—was in Somerset magistrates court. In 1990 that court had to take no fewer than 11 separate enforcement actions against one debtor. Such examples are repeated throughout England and Wales.
I hope that when I describe the Bill's main clauses hon. Members will realise that, although the kernel of this legislative nut is pretty uncomplicated and straightforward, the measure is necessarily wrapped up in some complexity. The Bill may seem somewhat long and complicated for its purpose. That is simply because the law

on maintenance is contained in a sizeable number of statutes. Some hon. Members may say that maintenance enforcement and maintenance in general are ripe for consolidation. That may well turn out to be true in the fullness of time. On studying the Bill, my hon. Friends will probably find that there is a great deal of repetition. That is because the law on maintenance is not consolidated. That is a matter to which in the fullness of time we shall undoubtedly need to turn our attention.
Although the Bill deals mainly with magistrates courts' powers—much of the collection and enforcement of maintenance is done by those courts—the Bill gives similar powers to the county courts and the High Court. That continues the aims and ideas behind the widely welcomed Children Act 1989, which created a concurrent jurisdiction between the three types of court. Again, we are putting children first.
Clauses 1 and 2 contain the principal provisions of the Bill. They give powers to the High Court, the county courts or magistrates courts to specify the method of payment when making or dealing with a maintenance order. Those powers include entirely new powers to order that maintenance payments should be made by standing order direct to the creditor, or by an attachment of earnings order.
The first method—payment by standing order—will be particularly useful where a debtor is self-employed. On the face of it, the self-employed debtor is a difficult case because he or she cannot be the subject of an attachment of earnings order, especially if he or she is simply too lazy or too disorganised to make regular payments. Once the order has commenced, maintenance payments will become as regular as any of the other payments made by such debtors by that method. It would require a positive action to cancel the standing order.
Some hon. Members may be worried that the power to require a debtor to open a bank account in order that payments can be made by standing order is somewhat draconian. I do not believe that it is and perhaps I should give a word of explanation about the thinking behind it. It is not as draconian as it might first appear. The provision is vital if we are to prevent some debtors from continuing so successfully to play the system simply by dictating the method by which they will pay, or rather not pay. Unless that power is available, a large number of the people who may be involved in maintenance order actions—those who are self-employed—would effectively be able to escape any maintenance order enforcement.
My hon. Friends will probably notice that under the Bill no court is obliged to order that payments be made by standing order. There is no obligation. All the methods of payment given in the Bill are equally available. The Bill makes distinct provision for the parties and any person who may be the recipient of the maintenance, such as a grandmother or grandfather who is looking after the children, to tell the courts what method they prefer. There are four methods of payment—direct payment to the spouse, payment to the courts, payment by standing order and payment by attachment of earnings.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the possibility of using direct debits? It may be possible at some stage to consider some type of indexation of maintenance payments. Direct debits have been left out. Is it possible that they will be put in?

Mr. Patten: The direct debit is an appalling thought on the face of it. It is not quite the same as a standing order, because either side has the power to vary the direct debit mandate. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point which we may have the chance to examine in Committee. Unless my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) is careful, he may find himself on that Committee. I do not say that in a threatening way. I shall think about his constructive suggestion, for which I am extremely grateful.
Most importantly, if the debtor can show to the court that there is a reason why he or she cannot open an account—for example, because every bank in the area in which he or she lives has refused to allow him or her to do so it will be impossible for the method suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton to be used, whether by standing order or direct debit. I make it clear to my hon. Friend that the power to which I refer does not interfere in any way with the banks' ability to run their business in the way in which they think best. If a debtor is ordered to open a bank account, the order will be against him, not a particular bank, to open an account on his or her behalf. In other words, the order will not specify where the account should be opened.

Mr. Randall: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens), clause 1(5)(b) suggests that payment can be made by standing order or any other form of payment. I am sure that that must include direct debits and other forms of crediting an account. In law those methods are the same to all intents and purposes, apart from direct debits, the mandate for which can be varied, as has been said.

Mr. Patten: There are technical difficulties about using direct debits because the debtor can vary the payment at any time without cancelling the order. That is a point to which we may return in detail during the undoubtedly long hours of the Standing Committee sittings.
Where a debtor is in employment, payment by attachment of earnings may be much the more effective method. At present that can be done only when the maintenance order is offered and the debtor consents, under the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971. I am advised that in only about 10 per cent. of cases in 1989 did people consent to having an attachment of earnings order made. That is a very small number.
I realise that some hon. Members are worried that the Bill will increase the number of attachment of earnings orders in existence and, consequently, the administrative burden that employers have to bear. I do not want to add to the burden on either large or small employers. I understand that fear. I have considered the matter carefully since the debates in another place.
We are urgently considering increasing the administrative charge that employers can deduct when complying with an order. It would be manifestly unfair if the level of charge that employers could apply were kept at perhaps its current level, which is less than the economic cost of making those orders. Consultation is proceeding. Lord Ferrers gave an assurance in another place on the matter. We are consulting the Confederation of British Industry and, I dare say, others on the issue. I hope that during the passage of the Bill through the House I shall be in a position to make an announcement about helping industry and business in that way.
What was said in another place bears repetition. We cannot depend on a debtor's consent to use such an effective method of maintenance collection, as fewer than one in 10 debtors have been prepared to give that consent. Last year consent was given in only 7,000 cases.
Clause 3 of the Bill has two parts. The first simplifies the procedure by which a creditor gives authority to a justices' clerk to take enforcement action on his behalf, when maintenance payments are made through a magistrates court. Under the present system specific authority must be given on each occasion that a default occurs. The Bill provides that a creditor can give a standing authority—like a standing order—to the court so that every time there is a default the necessary enforcement action can be taken. That will considerably help to smooth the processing of maintenance orders.
The second part of clause 3 has teeth. It is clear that sometimes people have been told to pay by a certain method but do not do so. Therefore, there needs to be some sanction. The Bill will impose a sanction of a sum up to a maximum of £1,000—people will have the chance to make representations about it to the court—if a person fails to pay by the method specified by the magistrates court. If there is no element of sanction, people will simply cock a snook at the court, as they do in so many cases at present, and—what is worse—they will badly hurt their spouse, child or children.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend be clarifying the position of the 7,000 people who pay up? I imagine that there will be some among them who would prefer to pay directly to ensure that their privacy is respected. They might not necessarily want their employer to be involved. Does the Bill contain provision to enable such people to continue to maintain their privacy and to pay directly?

Mr. Patten: As I said earlier, there are five ways to pay: by attachment of earnings order, standing order, any other suitable banking instrument, payment direct to the court and payment direct to the creditor. Therefore, after due debate between the two sides before the magistrates, or in the county court or the High Court, it will be possible for payment to be made in that way.

Mr. Randall: Unless I misunderstood, I think that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) was referring to privacy when people have to pay by an attachment of earnings order. The Bill would result in other employees having access to some personal details—for example, the fact that someone is divorced. I do not think that the Bill ensures that there would be greater privacy, although the orders will be used far more in the future.

Mr. Patten: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. We are trying to deal with this problem and to prevent 80,000 cases coming before the magistrates courts each year—with the emotional and financial problems involved. If an attachment of earnings order is the chosen method, a certain amount of information has to be given by the court. Such attachments may also be imposed by other means.
Clauses 4 to 7 give magistrates courts power to specify the method of payment when varying, reviving or enforcing a maintenance order. Clause 8 allows the justices' clerk power to amend payment when a person no longer claims income support or when he or she


subsequently reclaims benefit under section 24A of the Social Security Act 1986. That was a matter of concern to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
Many maintenance orders come before magistrates courts for the purposes of reciprocal enforcement, either from other parts of the United Kingdom or from other countries. We have remarkably good reciprocal enforcement arrangements with a number of West African countries, with Czechoslovakia and with one or two central European countries, but we have remarkably bad arrangements with some of our western European partners. We are prepared to do the business on behalf of people whose spouses have fled to this country, but, alas, some of our western European partners are not prepared to help out in return.

Mr. Simon Burns: I am pleased to learn about the reciprocal arrangements with a number of countries. Will my right hon. Friend give me some guidance on what could happen if a British court has made a decision on payments to a mother and child, the father goes to a country with which we have a reciprocal arrangement, but the mother does not know where he is in that country and cannot trace him? One of my constituents has a spouse in Australia. She cannot track down the home address of her former husband, so she cannot take him to court in Australia to have the British courts' maintenance agreement enforced.

Mr. Patten: I am extremely sorry to hear of that case and I hope that my hon. Friend will write to me with details about his constituent—perhaps he has already done so—which would give me the chance to look into the matter. Normally, in a country like Australia it should be possible to track down someone from social security records or residence records of various sorts.
For the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, I must explain how we do things in this country. A group of civil servants are seated, or lurking—however one wishes to describe it—in the Home Office and they make up the central authority. If someone comes to this country from France, for example, and does not pay his or her maintenance order to a spouse or children in France, a French court or the French Government can get in touch with the Home Office, and we do all we possibly can to track down the person, through whatever means are available to us, and to get an enforcement order specified by a British magistrates court on behalf of the French spouse and children. Our system and our record are second to none. However, we need to do more within Council of Europe countries to ensure that our western European partners do more to help people in Britain whose husbands or wives have gone into European jurisdiction. That is an element of the European debate with which many hon. Members are not familiar, but it is one of the many ramifications which face us. We generally have good relations with Australia and the United States.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Are the provisions for paying citizens who have gone to France as good as our provisions for French citizens? Is there reciprocity of treatment in this matter?

Mr. Patten: I must not get dragged too far down that route; I was referring to international relations in an aside. Reciprocal arrangements do not work well with France and one or two other western European countries and do

not benefit people living in this country. However, I think that there has been no criticism of the way in which the British have looked after the interests of French citizens who have applied for orders here. We need to pursue that matter further within our bilateral treaty arrangements.
Many maintenance orders come into magistrates courts for the purposes of reciprocal enforcement, either from other parts of the United Kingdom or from other countries. Therefore, clause 9, which gives effect to schedule 1, provides for magistrates courts to have similar powers in respect of those orders.
The Bill is small, but it seeks to make sensible changes. I hope that they will be uncontroversial changes to the existing maintenance system and that they will improve the effectiveness of the courts in preventing maintenance default and, should default occur, to assist them to take enforcement action.
I hope that hon. Members will recognise the benefits of the Bill for women and for men who are dependent on maintenance payments and, most of all, the benefits which will undoubtedly flow to children in this country and elsewhere. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The Bill aims to improve the procedures for the payment and enforcement of maintenance orders. The major change that I perceive to meet the aims is to allow the courts, when a maintenance order is made, to specify the method of payment. Accordingly, as the Minister of State pointed out, the Bill is narrow.
In the 1980s, considerable debate took place on the whole question of family maintenance and, in particular, on whether spouses should continue to be entitled to the so-called meal ticket for life. The outcome was legislation which compelled the courts, after a divorce had taken place, to consider whether the spouse concerned should receive maintenance for a limited term to help her to adjust to the end of her financial dependence on her former husband. That was referred to as the clean break.
This decade has started with a change in the debate, towards the children and the family and the notion that parents will indefinitely have an obligation to support their children, irrespective of the state of the relationship between the parents. Although there must be an obligation to children, some fathers remarry and have children in the second marriage. Often those fathers are under terrific pressure, to which I referred in my intervention, from the second wife who perhaps resents having to bring up children almost in poverty because of a maintenance order from her husband's previous marriage.
Notwithstanding the practical issue, it is important to note—the Minister touched on this—that after family break-up the majority of men continue to support their children and their former wives in a reasonable fashion. However, there must be concern that, according to the Minister's figures, an estimated 80,000 enforcement proceedings are held within the court system. I assume that that is the figure per annum.

Mr. John Patten: Yes.

Mr. Randall: That means that some children are being deprived of the financial security to which they should be fully entitled. It should also be said that many fathers who fail to adhere to maintenance orders put their own


economic well-being before that of their children. That behaviour is unacceptable. Therefore, I support the idea of improving enforcement to ensure that lone parents and children receive regular incomes.
Another important factor worth mentioning is that a staggering 80 per cent. or so of lone mothers need to claim income support, which means that many children are brought up in households with all the disadvantages of near poverty because their fathers fail to make the necessary provision for them.
The Labour party supports the principle that the court, at the time a maintenance order is made, should be able simultaneously to make an attachment of earnings order so that maintenance costs can be deducted at source from the father's pay packet, with the help of his employer, with the money being passed subsequently to the mother. The main reason for supporting that in principle is that, unlike the existing procedure where action is taken only after default, the default itself can be prevented, which means that children can be protected from much trauma, despair and distress.
While supporting that provision in principle, the Labour party believes that in practical terms the Bill has serious deficiencies which threaten the very children whom we all want to protect. I shall highlight some of the deficiencies later. Perhaps at this stage I should say that some of them could be dealt with by proposals in the Government's White Paper "Children Come First". The Minister referred to the Child Support Bill which will come to the House soon.
The White Paper, which was supposed to form the basis of the Government's review of the family justice system, was announced by the Government at the time the House debated the Children Act 1989. That was some time ago but it was announced in the Queen's Speech that a Bill would be published in this Session of Parliament to legislate on the proposals in the White Paper. I understand that the legislation had its First Reading in another place a couple of days ago. I will say within these four walls, because no one else is listening, that I intended to slag the Minister for not doing anything on the matter, but I note the efficiency of his officials, whom we should not mention, which has ensured the First Reading in another place, and which we all welcome.
Clause 1 of the Bill before us refers to the powers of the High Court and of county courts to issue maintenance orders. It also gives those courts powers to specify the method of payment that may be used by a debtor—usually the husband—to settle maintenance commitments. The key methods of payment may be standing order, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, direct debit—I cannot remember whether I saw that in the Bill or read about it in a briefing—or attachment of earnings, which means debiting the debtor's wages. The aim of using the powers is to ensure that maintenance is paid regularly. Hopefully the effect would be to reduce stress and worry for the wife and children.
In addition, much court time could be saved by reducing the effort expended, for example, in issuing enforcement summonses, preparing notifications of arrears and arranging hearings. I ask one question: will the Bill in its present form achieve those desirable objectives? The Labour party doubts it. I refer the House to the

comments of the Law Society, which also has doubts. I shall paraphrase what the Law Society said in a briefing sent to hon. Members on 18 February. It had some doubt whether the Bill would significantly increase the payment of maintenance, particularly when the fundamental problem was that the payer either could not or would not pay.
Although the county courts will have new powers to force a debtor to set up a bank account, that will not provide a complete solution. A determined debtor could refuse to pay any funds into his bank account, and a bank cannot deal with a standing order if the debtor does not put in any money in the first place. That is a serious flaw: debtors would still be able to evade their responsibilities. Moreover, when a debtor is a proven bad-debt risk, a bank or building society is extremely unlikely to be prepared to open an account for him in any event.
The Bill also has significant implications for civil liberties. I cannot remember the precise word that the Minister used, but he said that there was a need for sanction——

Mr. John Carlisle: May I return to the question of bad debts, and credit rating with building societies and banks? Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that courts should not continue to try to impose maintenance orders. If the courts are put off by bad credit rating, people may be encouraged to achieve such status, perhaps maliciously, knowing full well that they can then avoid liability for maintenance payments.

Mr. Randall: The Opposition entirely support the principle of enforcing maintenance orders. I merely suggest that the proposal with which the Minister dealt at such length could be made to fail to work. If someone definitely does not want to pay, although he can be compelled to open a bank account, he need only fail to put funds into it. As the bank cannot then proceed with the transaction, the system is bound to fail.

Mr. Burns: Could not the courts deal with a systematic defaulter by adopting another means of obtaining the money—for instance, attachment of earnings, withdrawal of social security payments or seizure of goods? Surely the courts must judge for themselves what is the best system to impose on each individual to ensure that mothers receive the funds that the courts have specified.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is right. Various mechanisms can be invoked: the Minister listed four. I merely suggest that someone who is intent on not making standing order payments will be able to get away with it. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) looks rather bemused, but surely the position is clear: the debtor goes to court, a maintenance order is made and, at the same time—this is the new element—the method of payment is determined. My point is simply that more court time will be wasted if a debtor is intent on wrecking the system; he may set up a bank account, but he need only fail to invest any money for the whole thing to fall flat. Meanwhile, his family may be forced to rely on income support.

Mr. Burns: I do not want to make heavy weather of this, but I do not think that the position is as gloomy as the hon. Gentleman suggests. Surely, in such circumstances, the courts will change the system under which money can be obtained. The hon. Gentleman says that disruption will


result, but we must bear in mind that great disruption, and grave injustice, exist under the present system. Surely a mother waiting for maintenance payments will be more reassured by the battery of arrangements in the Bill than by the existing system, under which, more often than not, she will end tip resorting to income support because of the methods employed by the courts.

Mr. Randall: I believe that the enforcement weapons now available to the courts will result in more families receiving money through maintenance orders. Like the Law Society, however, I am less sanguine about the system than the hon. Gentleman, because it would be so easy to wreck the whole arrangement by withdrawing money from the bank and putting it into, for instance, a building society.

Mr. John Patten: I entirely understand the practical point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) cited a way of dealing with it, but, if the hon. Gentleman remains unconvinced, has he any practical suggestions to help the Government and those who do not receive their maintenance payments?

Mr. Randall: I could offer some suggestions. The most popular measures for the courts to impose would be attachment of earnings and standing orders—although there are some stopgap measures, which are used only infrequently. Such arrangements would, however, be difficult to impose on, for example, a self-employed person: he will have no money in his bank account to pay a standing order, and attachment of earnings will not work because he will not be on an employer's computerised payroll file. Many small businesses are going into liquidation, but such businesses still employ a large number of people who can slip through the net.

Mr. Stevens: Although those who do not want to pay may still be able to cause trouble, under the present system the adamant—or awkward—can cause not only difficulties for families, but a good deal of delay. The Bill introduces some measures to improve, if not cure, the lot of many families.

Mr. Randall: I accept that the Bill's aim is to deal with such problems expeditiously, and, as I have said, a number of families will probably be better off if the courts are enabled to enforce orders on debtors. At the beginning of his speech the Minister of State referred to 80,000 proceedings. To how many will that number be reduced? I suggest that it will not be reduced to 10, 20 or 30; it may be reduced to 20,000 or 30,000. Even so, that is a very large number. I am not sanguine that these measures will be invincible. I have received advice from varous organisations, in particular the Law Society which is a reputable organisation; its judgment is sound and it knows what is going on. It should, therefore, be recognised that there is doubt about the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

Mr. John Patten: I may be in a position to help the hon. Gentleman. He is concerned about the effect of the Bill if it passes into law. I guess that he wants it to pass into law, as amended in this House and by the other place. No one can say what the outcome will be. However, in 1979 about 7,000 attachment of earnings orders were made. They represented the outcome of 22 per cent. of all enforcement proceedings. In only about 10 per cent. of those did

individuals say that they would consent to an attachment of earnings order. Therefore, 90 per cent. did not consent. They will have to do so in future, so that a lot more men, and sometimes women, will have to pay up for their spouses and children—and quite right, too.

Mr. Randall: I welcome those figures. It shows that such measures can work. However, I am not convinced that they will be as effective as both I and, I know, the Minister of State would like them to be. I am dubious, but I am sure that in Committee these drawbacks and concerns will be debated in detail. There will also be the opportunity to table amendments.
There are civil liberties implications. For debating purposes, I intend to put my argument in fairly strong terms. We have a Conservative Government who, it could be argued, are interfering in the personal affairs of private individuals by forcing them, against their will, to open bank accounts and make certain payment transactions in a way that is specified by central Government. The Minister of State will say that we are dealing with defaulters whose actions are detrimental to the well-being of children and wives. I know that the Minister speaks on behalf of the Government, but does he have any personal reservations about the civil liberties implications? This country sometimes goes overboard when it comes to civil liberties, but I feel anxious about the implications here. What are the precedents in British legislation for forcing people to open bank accounts? I am not sure that there are any precedents. I hope that the Minister will deal in specific terms with that question.
The arrangements associated with maintenance orders that are made in the High Court and county courts are made directly between the debtor, the husband, and the creditor, the wife. Therefore it is for the debtor and creditor to note which payments have been made and whether there has been default. If the maintenance order debtor is in default, an attachment of earnings order can also be used to enforce the order. The Minister referred to that point, which was also raised in interventions. Attachment of earnings orders are regarded as the best means of enforcement, though they have limitations. If a defaulter regularly changes his job, it can lead to difficulties in finding out who his new employer is and making all the new arrangements to deduct the cost of maintenance from his wages. An example was given of inability to trace somebody. I am making the same point. There is a cost to employers in making the deductions. I believe that employers are entitled to make a further deduction from the debtor's pay packet, amounting to 50p per transaction.
The Minister referred to the Confederation of British Industry. I have received a parliamentary brief from the CBI. It is very short but useful, and I welcome it. It, too, has reservations about the future cost of making the deductions. On 14 February the CBI said in its brief, entitled "Maintenance Enforcement Through Attachment of Earnings—Second Reading, Parliamentary Brief", that
The use of attachment of earnings orders in cases of maintenance enforcement will impose substantial administrative costs (around £10 per deduction) on employers and place an unwelcome strain on industrial relations. The CBI values the undertaking given at the Lords Committee Stage that employers would be consulted on the implementation and administration of the legislation and welcomes the Department of Social Security's initiation since then of this consultation process.


The Minister referred to the consultation process. The brief continues:
The CBI looks forward to working with the Department to ensure that administrative procedures are simple, certain and, as far as possible, consistent with those for existing forms of attachment order.
From that it is clear that the CBI thinks that the new administrative procedures for attachment of earnings orders may be much more complex than the existing arrangements, to the extent that the deduction may rise from 50p to £10. I should be grateful if the Minister of State would explain who is to pay for that. I had always thought that the 50p was paid by the person who was making the maintenance payments. May this figure be increased to £10 per deduction? I hope that the Minister will explain whether I am right or wrong. Furthermore, can he enlighten us about the ramifications of the levy charged by employers being increased to that level? Has he discussed it with his Department of Social Security colleagues? It is a serious issue.
Since the number of attachment of earnings orders will probably increase if the Bill becomes an Act, does the Minister of State see any reason for the increase in the levy because of the volume of payments? I should not have thought that it would make too much difference, because payments are made per deduction. I should like to know whether volume has anything to do with it. The House should be aware of the CBI's useful statement on the issue.
The Bill empowers courts to issue an attachment of earnings order at the same time as the maintenance order is made. The existing arrangement does not allow a court to make an attachment of earnings order, if requested by the wife or creditor, until arrears exist. Even then, at least 15 days must pass after the order is made. The Labour party welcomes the change, which will improve considerably the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of attachment of earnings orders. A major administrative benefit is that courts will no longer need to spend extra time dealing separately with maintenance orders and attachment of earnings orders. More importantly, serving maintenance orders and attachment of earnings orders simultaneously will deal with potential defaults before they occur. The Bill will enhance the position of wives and children and reduce the probability of putting them through the trauma and uncertainty of having no income.
Nevertheless, we must keep matters in perspective. Attachment of earnings orders are not always as effective as they might appear at first glance. Although the attachment of earnings orders arrangements aim to reduce defaults, in Committee we shall have to consider loopholes—for example, moonlighting. A debtor could have two or even three jobs which, together, give him a susbstantial income. In court, he could simply declare the name of one employer. Naturally, he would give the name of the employer from whom he received the smallest income and hide the details of the others. The court would then not order his other employers to make a deduction from his wage packet and the family would lose out. I regret that the Government have made no proposals to combat moonlighting.
In addition to the Bill's civil liberties implications, we must also consider the threat to personal privacy, which was mentioned in earlier interventions. Again, the

Government have made no provision to protect people against such abuse. The attachment of earnings order provision means that a debtor's personal details—about marriage, maintenance or other matters—will be seen by certain employees in the company where the debtor works. The Bill does not appear to prevent that personal information from being indiscreetly used by certain company employees. For example, a person's promotion prospects could be impaired by the fact that it will be known throughout the company that that person has a broken marriage. In some jobs that may be important. I hope that, in Committee, the Labour party or the Government will table amendments to the Bill to ensure that the privacy of the individual is protected at all times.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about privacy extend to the right afforded to a mother not to reveal the name of her child's father? In certain cases, the father of the child may not be the marriage partner.

Mr. Randall: I was about to come to that issue, but perhaps we can deal with it now. As politicians, we must deal with such questions and weigh up the arguments between civil liberties and privacy. The private details of a person's lifestyle, such as marriage, should not be carelessly disseminated throughout a company or used in telephone calls or references. I deplore such unnecessary and careless abuse of privacy. However, a woman who has a child and does not want to disclose the name of the father—perhaps she does not know it or has personal reasons for not wishing to disclose it—should not be penalised. For example, the father may be her grandfather, or she may have some other complicated reason for not disclosing the name. I should want to weigh up the arguments carefully before deciding. A court would need to be convinced that a woman had good reasons for not disclosing that information, but the woman should not be denied an income because she is not prepared to disclose it. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) asked a difficult and sensitive question. We have no rigid rules on the issue, but we must be careful and sensitive in dealing with it.

Mrs. Gorman: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have taken much interest in the Bill. I have spoken to many women who are in that position, and they often say that they would rather not pursue the father because they are afraid for their own safety. They want to be independent and to be able to go out to work and earn their own money. They do not want to be caught up in this terrible business, but want their self-respect. Perhaps another Bill could be brought forward to help them.

Mr. Randall: I could not have been more eloquent than the hon. Lady. Her argument is persuasive and shows the complexity and sensitivity of such cases. We should not be too heavy-handed and forceful in those matters; rather, there must be considerable discretion.

Mr. Stevens: I understand the complexity and difficulties that can occur for some women, but it is important that collusion between parents does not disadvantage their children or the state. I accept that the availability of private information on an attachment of earnings order could be embarrassing if it were improperly used, but if people do not want to get into that position they can pay the maintenance by other means that are completely private to them and the court.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, as he usually does. The Minister referred to the four mechanisms for making payment that are available to the court, and I am considering them individually. One of the problems with attachment of earnings orders is privacy. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about collusion but, as I said to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), any mechanism must offer discretion and flexibility. People who need their case considered sensitively and carefully could suffer under a rigid set of rules.
The attachment of earnings order will be used extensively by county courts because they will be able to decide the payment mechanism when they make a maintenance order. However, the threat of potential abuses of privacy will grow. Labour Members believe that the Government have a clear duty to provide the appropriate mechanism to protect the privacy of people, whether or not they are failing in their duties properly to look after their children. The fact that they are debtors does not mean that we can discard the principle of ensuring people's privacy.
Clauses 2 to 7 deal with the new arrangements to be applied in the magistrates court. Clause 2 provides that a magistrates court must specify the method of payment at the same time as the maintenance order is made. The Minister referred to the four methods of payment that the court can use—direct payment between the debtor and the creditor, via the court, by standing order and by an attachment of earnings order, via the employer.
Magistrates courts have no discretion in adopting one of those methods of payment, but the High Court and the county court have the discretion to decide whether to specify a method of payment when serving a maintenance order. If the reforms in the Bill aimed at preventing arrears are so laudable—the Minister of State has praised them—why have not the Government imposed the same compulsion on the High Court and county courts as they have on magistrates courts? Is there a major principle at stake, or are there merely technical reasons for the difference between magistrates courts and the High Court and county court? If the difference is made for technical reasons, why have not the Government allowed magistrates courts that discretion?
The consequences of that are serious. Families will be more likely to go through the stress and trauma that I referred to purely because technical difficulties exist in preparing appropriate legislation. I shall not speculate on that, but I should like the Minister to give the House a full explanation of that apparent omission from the Bill.
Clause 3 amends the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and, in cases where maintenance payments are made via the court, enables the creditor—the woman—to give the justices' clerk a standing authority to initiate enforcement proceedings once the debtor goes into arrears on his payments. On the face of it, that approach would have considerable benefits for the wife compared with the existing arrangements, which prevent the justices' clerk from taking any action until the wife or creditor has requested him to do so.
A major benefit of that reform is that valuable court time could be saved, thereby speeding up the processes of safeguarding the family's income. In addition, the debtor would be encouraged to keep up his regular payments because he would know that the justices' clerk will be monitoring his payments and will quickly take enforcement action if he falls behind.

In its brief on the Bill, the Law Society supports giving justices' clerks that standing authority. It says:
It will now be possible for a creditor to give a standing authority at any time, for the Clerk to take action, which will mean, that the Clerk will not need to receive repeated authorisations from the creditor in the future…The Law Society supports the provisions, relating to the introduction of standing authorities to the court clerk, to take enforcement action—this will simplify procedure and ease the burden from lone parents of taking action.
However, it has doubts about the method of payment orders.
The National Council for One Parent Families has expressed two concerns about the Bill. The first is that many lone parents are adversely affected by delays in courts' serving procedures, which is caused by a lack of resources. What steps will the Minister take to provide those vital resources to improve serving procedures? It must be a matter of concern that the Bill states that there are no resource implications arising from this legislation. If the Government are genuinely concerned about children and lone parents, should not they take immediate action to speed up court procedures by ensuring that the necessary resources are available? I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to that because the sheer sluggishness of court procedures seems to be causing many problems.
The second concern expressed by the National Council for One Parent Families is that the Bill seems to contain no provisions to deal with the delay in court procedures where a debtor deliberately fails to attend the court hearing in order to avoid making maintenance payments to his family. It believes that if a debtor and his solicitor intentionally fail to attend a court hearing dealing with arrears in maintenance payments, the magistrate should make an order in their absence unless he is satisfied that it is undesirable to do so. Clearly, such behaviour by the debtor is grossly unacceptable and quite irresponsible. I should like to hear the Minister's view. What new provisions do the Government intend to introduce to protect families from such behaviour?
The long title makes the Bill rather narrow. Although some of the provisions seem supportable, we have considerable reservations about what they would mean in practice. Informed opinion outside the House has expressed serious reservations about the Bill's effectiveness. I regret the Government's choice of a long title for the Bill because it is bound to restrict the ability of the House even to propose amendments to alleviate some of the problems encountered by families when fathers fail to face up to their responsibilities.
The Bill is a wasted opportunity. We support some of its provisions but its scope is too narrow. It is defective in practical terms and will have limited benefits.

6 pm

Mr. Simon Burns: I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) will forgive me if I do not take up all the points that he has made. Let me say—in the nicest possible way—that I felt that his concluding remarks were a little unjust and unduly gloomy about the Bill's prospects of success.
I regard the Bill as the hors d'oeuvre before a good lunch—the good lunch being the Child Support Bill, introduced last week in another place, which will no doubt wend its way to this House. The two Bills interact and should not necessarily be seen as totally separate. They are joint Bills and one helps the other.
I welcome the Bill, however narrow it may be, because it is a step in the right direction. It deals with the mechanics of collecting child maintenance. It is worth looking beyond the Bill to ensure that the Child Support Bill will tighten up the whole maintenance system. That is beyond the scope of this Bill, but it is important for it to be on the statute book as quickly as possible to bring help and to increase the number of weapons available to the courts to overcome the serious problem of maintenance support.
One must consider the context in order to appreciate the extent of the problem. There are currently more than 1 million lone parents; 41 per cent. are divorced mothers and 23 per cent. are unmarried mothers. Each year, 41,000 new child maintenance orders, 34,000 lump sum orders and 50,000 consent orders are made and magistrates deal with 28,000 applications for award and variation of maintenance each year. Some 500,000 maintenance accounts and 85,000 enforcement proceedings are dealt with each year.
Problems often arise not with those families in respect of which the courts are able to intervene and have some effect, but with the majority of lone parents who are not getting the financial maintenance that they should or could expect. Hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of taxpayers' money is being used, through the income support system, to support one-parent families when absent parents—they are usually fathers, but I believe that 3 per cent. are mothers—evade their social responsibilities. That is unfair to the taxpayer, but, clearly, no one wants to consider the issue solely from the taxpayers' perspective. It is also grossly unfair to the lone parents because, more often than not, the money that they receive from the state is less than the maintenance that would probably have been—or has been—awarded by the courts.
Once an order has been made, there is the serious problem of enforcing it. That is why the Bill is so important. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned the case of a father who gets divorced or splits from his family and children and then forms another family relationship, either inside or outside marriage. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the stress and problems placed upon the second family because of the father's financial responsibility for his first family through court maintenance orders. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said, but, with all due respect, he was somewhat cavalier in glossing over the feelings and problems of the first family which has been left by a father who sets up a second home.

Mr. Randall: I thought that I had made it clear on two occasions that I support the principle that parents are responsible for their children, irrespective of what happens to their relationship—whether they remain single or remarry. I accept that principle, but I was tempering the statement by mentioning some of the practical considerations. Many people are on low incomes and second wives may become bolshie and make life difficult. They may think, "Why should I bring my children up in near-poverty?" That is a dilemma for parents and it is a practical consideration which must be taken into account.

Mr. Burns: I appreciate that point. I do not want to sound hard or uncaring—I do not believe that I am—but I think that a father who leaves one family, forms another

liaison, either inside or outside marriage, and has more children must bear in mind his responsibility and the implications of his action.

Mr. John Patten: Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is exactly what the Government are trying to do with their twin-track approach in this Bill and the Child Support Bill? We seek to make those who have left one household and some children think twice, or perhaps three or four times, before having more children. Parenthood is for life and it is their duty to maintain the children that they have had and those that they may have. The two Bills together will force them to do that.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. In his characteristically clear way, he has hit the nail on the head and come to the heart of the problem.
We have discussed the second family and the father who wants to meet his financial responsibilities, although it may be financially difficult for him to do so. The other problem which, sadly, occurs all to often is that of the father who, when establishing a second family, wants to wash his hands completely of the first family and does not want to meet any of his financial responsibilities, whether he can or cannot do so. That is a tragedy as well.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, we must always bear in mind the two basic principles of the Bill. The first is that family responsibility should be actively encouraged. I believe that it is still too easy for an individual to walk out of family life. I know that many people give serious consideration to the marital problems, and if a marriage has broken down irretrievably, it is probably in the children's interests for it to be ended, but under the law as it stands, it is far too easy for those who are not prepared to give their marriage a second chance—or to accept counselling that might help save that marriage—to abandon their responsibilities, including their financial responsibilities. That brings us back once again to the need for the Bill.
I am sure that the constituents of many right hon. and hon. Members come to our surgeries with problems emanating from the fact that they are not receiving the maintenance that they should. It is upsetting to listen to the tales of genuine hardship told by mothers who are not only struggling after the traumatic break-up of their marriage—traumatic not just for them but for their children—but having to cope with financial worries because their only source of income is the state. They are then caught in the poverty trap of state benefits from which it is so difficult to break free. More often than not, the reason for that is the attitude and behaviour of the father.
I welcome the fact that the courts are to have increased powers to tighten up on enforcement. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will assure us—perhaps we shall have to wait for the Child Support Bill for assurance to be given—that more will be done to give courts powers to track down absent fathers. Not only should more power be given through the tax system to track down absent fathers in this country, but, as I said in an intervention, more power should be available to track down those who may be the subject of British court orders but who have gone overseas. That is crucial.
The second principle that we must not forget is that it is much better to avoid default than to try to rectify the problem once it has occurred. Despite the misgivings of the


hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, the Bill will go a long way to tighten up that aspect of the law. At present, maintenance is paid either to the court or directly to the recipient, but there are not enough ways of enforcing the provisions in respect of someone who determinedly defaults on payments. That is why the extra powers are so welcome. In future, payments will be made by standing order. I thought that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was nitpicking when he took us through the problems of standing orders. I do not think that the standing order provisions will be as difficult to implement as he suggested. Moreover, the standing order option is only one of a number of options that a court can adopt.

Mr. Randall: I do not quite understand what the hon. Gentleman means by "difficult". I said only that the Government's proposed standing order scheme was utterly open to simple abuse.

Mr. Burns: That is true. My point is that if there is likely to be abuse, and if the scheme is therefore unsuitable in a particular case, the courts will not use that procedure. They may go for attachment of earnings or choose some other way of enforcing payment. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's fears, even on that narrow issue, are as well founded as he implied. Certainly in respect of those who will not deliberately seek to use the standing order procedures to abuse the system, it will be easier to prove non-payment by examining building society accounts and bank statements.
The other important provision is that relating to the attachment of earnings. At present, the courts use that method only when someone has been wilfully neglectful or has deliberately defaulted. The method is used only in extreme cases. By widening the use of that weapon to magistrates courts, we shall go a long way to help to solve the problem.
I have one or two suggestions for the possible improvement or strengthening of the Bill. I listened carefully to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about court time and about those who deliberately do not turn up for hearings, thus immediately placing the burden on the shoulders of the lone mother awaiting a court decision. I agree with him that it would help to alleviate a great deal of hardship if my right hon. Friend the Minister could re-examine the matter to see whether there is any reasonable way in which the provisions could be tightened up. For example, we might allow magistrates courts to make a decision in the person's absence.
If my memory serves me right, the CBI briefing that we all received referred to a possible cost of up to £10 in respect of an attachment of earnings order. It is not necessarily in anyone's best interests for industry and commerce—the employers to have—to pick up the tab. I welcome the promise that the Government made in the other place to look at the matter further. I hope that something can be done to ensure that the burden is placed fairly and squarely in the pocket of the person directly responsible—the father who is meant to be paying the maintenance-—and thus to save industry and commerce expense. That would improve the system and benefit everyone—except possibly the father who will then have to pay more.
Will the Government consider the removal of the provision which renders legal aid unavailable in respect of the issue of a county court summons? It is reasonable to ask the Government to look again, even if they eventually find that they cannot meet the request.
Let me take up a point made on Second Reading in the other place. Will the Government consider consulting the Inland Revenue about the adjustment of tax codes for those in default as a means of deducting maintenance? People in all walks of life know how efficient the Revenue is in going after its clients and customers and its money. It is almost like a terrier. If we could involve the powers and enthusiasm of the Revenue, we should go a long way towards helping lone mothers and their children.
The most important principle is to ensure that, in questions of divorce and maintenance, the interests of the child are put first. I would enter the caveat that we must not forget or overlook the interests of the mother who has to bring up her children alone, often in the most difficult circumstances.
I believe that the Bill goes a long way towards helping the child by providing for proper and regular financial payments from the father. It also helps to alleviate the burden, worry and frustration of lone mothers. We look forward to the Child Support Bill, which, together with this Bill, constitutes an optimistic and serious way of tackling the problem.

Mr. John Carlisle: It is very pleasant to be invited to contribute to this debate on the introduction of a Bill that seems to have virtually all-party support. However, the two Members on the Opposition Front Bench must be feeling extremely lonely because no Opposition Back Benchers have been present during the debate, apart from one or two travellers who obviously came into the Chamber to escape the cold outside.

Mr. John Patten: What about the Liberals?

Mr. Carlisle: There have been no Liberal Members here either. It is disturbing that Opposition Members have not been present to debate this important Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, the Bill, regrettably, involves considerable sums of taxpayers' money. Opposition Members should have been here in greater numbers, although I pay credit to the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) for being present to represent their cause.
When I first considered the Bill, I wondered whether it was a Bill for lone parents, as it had been paraded or whether it was intended to penalise absent fathers. My constituency experience over the past 12 years makes me believe that perhaps the Bill should penalise absent fathers. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are aware from their constituency experience that the number of absent married or unmarried fathers is increasing, and that fact has been brought to our attention by the lone-parent mothers involved.
In the 12 years that I have represented my constituency the number of absent fathers has increased dramatically. It is high time that the Government introduced such a measure, and we look forward to the Bill's twin—the Child


Support Bill which is in another place—as a means of strengthening the powers of the courts against absent fathers.
Absent fathers are prevalent at the moment and they cost the taxpayer enormous sums of money. They also bring misery upon misery to thousands of women and children. That misery is totally unnecessary and in many cases is callous. I can tell hon. Ladies who are present in the Chamber now that, although in the past perhaps I have not been too friendly to their causes and their gender, in this particular case they have my total sympathy. Absent fathers cause considerable misery.
I share the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. West at the conclusion of his speech. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough—although it may be extended in the Child Support Bill. In many cases the fathers are not named and in some cases they are not known. In my constituency, in some cases the father is not known until the child is born and the colour of its skin is revealed. That perhaps gives some hint about the extent of the problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I can understand my colleagues tutting when I say that, but such things happen.
In virtually every case the father gets away with it. He avoids any responsibility to the mother and to the child. He also gets away with any responsibility to the taxpayer because the taxpayer must pick up the tab.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford took up a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West about the courts enforcing orders against absent fathers who deliberately make themselves unemployed at certain times of the year when child maintenance orders are being made against them or are being upgraded in financial terms. I know of a sad case within my family where the absent father is a deep sea diver. He deliberately arranges for the court hearing to be heard when he knows that he will be unemployed because his work is seasonal. When the day is named for the case, he absents himself and the case is adjourned. In many cases adjournments are sought by absent or negligent fathers—call them what one will—on the basis that they know that the courts will not hear the case and it will be delayed. In every case the lone mother or the children involved suffer as a consequence.

Mr. John Patten: My hon. Friend has raised an exceptionally important point which we will have to consider in the twin-track approach encompassing this Bill and the Child Support Bill, which is in another place. However, the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 gives a new power to the court to levy costs against solicitors who put in for unnecessary adjournments that lead to the problems which my hon. Friend has accurately described. It would be a very good thing, too, if the lawyers had to pay occasionally.

Mr. Carlisle: Knowing the sympathy that my right hon. Friend the Minister has on occasion to show to the legal profession as a result of his duties, I can see how that remark matters to him. However, he is absolutely right. Such a remedy exists, but I should remind him that in several cases, even with the powers under the existing system, let alone those proposed in this Bill, magistrates do not use their powers to the full. On many occasions the magistrates' sympathy seems to be with the absent father

or they are swayed by the legal arguments made by the solicitors representing them. As a result that brings more misery to the lone mothers and their children.
Part of the Bill's aegis is that it will give some incentive to negligent fathers to go out to work harder to ensure that maintenance is paid. That is a somewhat pious hope. Sometimes absent fathers get themselves into financial trouble because of the so-called responsibilities that they take on in second or third marriages or in other relationships. They get themselves into virtually impossible positions and usually the taxpayer has to fund that irresponsibility.
I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that many lone mothers are dependent on income support and on some form of social benefit simply because the absent fathers are not paying their way. The problem is experienced not just by the wronged married woman; it is experienced also by the second, third or other woman who, perhaps unknowingly, has the children of the recalcitrant gentlemen known in my constituency as tower block stags who tend to jump from one flat to another, with no responsibility for the children they father.

Mr. John Patten: There is either something wrong with the amplification system or with my hearing. None of us on the Government Front Bench could hear the last word in my hon. Friend's phrase.

Mr. Carlisle: I was referring to tower block stags, who leap from one bed to another within my constituency. I suppose that that is humorous in a way, but it is also tragic for those who, for whatever reason, are caught.
In all sincerity, I can tell the House that the saddest cases that come to me—and I am sure to other right hon. and hon. Members—involve young girls who have been conned into producing children which they do not want. They must then take full responsibility for them and then go on their knees to their Member of Parliament and also plead with the social security to assist them. Many of them are ashamed of what has happened and are not willing to name the father who, of course, gets away with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has said, many women are afraid to name the father because of the possible consequences.
The Bill will provide some assistance but only a small amount. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, it is a Bill of responsibility. That is what the House and our constituents should be concerned with. Sadly, in the last decade or two, responsibility and discipline within the family have slipped, and are slipping further despite gallant attempts by various Governments to reverse the trend. Regrettably, the Bill will affect many people, perhaps far more than we who frame it and hope to pass it would ever envisage. The situation worsens day by day.
We and, I hope, the Opposition welcome the Bill. We welcome the spirit with which it has been presented and the spirit in which it has been received. If it brings some comfort to those lone mothers and children who suffer under the present system, it will be of some benefit. I hope that it will bring some relief to taxpayers who have picked up enormous bills for the negligence and indiscipline of many absent fathers. I fear that it may not go far enough, but, together with the Child Support Bill, it may at last reverse the terrible tide.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I congratulate the Government on this timely measure which will bear down on those irresponsible fathers who refuse to pay the maintenance ordered by the court. Power for the courts to attach a father's salary and make sure that the wife or partner receives money is long overdue.
I do not like the term "lone parent" because there are always two parents. There is no such thing as a one-parent family, a term that we seem to have dropped. We are talking about families which are invariably fatherless, but as that could mean widows, it is more correct to say that we are dealing with fathers who have scarpered from their families. The mere fact that a father has cleared off and has left his wife to go to such lengths to get maintenance tells us something about him. It is necessary for the courts to be given extra powers to ensure that such fathers meet their obligations.
The statistics on fatherless families show that about 41 per cent. of the women are divorced and that 23 per cent. are unmarried. What about the other 36 per cent.? Are they widowed mothers? Perhaps the Minister can supply that information when he replies.
As hon. Members have said, we are dealing with a difficult area of human relationships. There is often great bitterness between the parties, and sometimes the mother is unwilling to prosecute for maintenance because she fears for her existence. Many marriages break up because of fear. Incompatibility has meant that the marriage has foundered, and we are left to do something about the resulting untidiness. In debating such matters we usually deplore the divorce rate, but sometimes divorce is the most humane and sensible course. Divorce is not always bad. In the old days women were often trapped in unhappy and brutal marriages, perhaps for all of their lives, because they could not afford to separate, establish themselves and support their children.
Time and again I have made the important point that we who pontificate on these matters take a technical viewpoint to see how we can tidy the loose ends or block loopholes. I know some women who are bringing up children on their own. They meet for moral support and self-help so that one can look after the children while others go shopping. The Children Act 1989 is in danger of making that illegal because it requires people who look after children to be licensed.
When I talk to the women in such groups, I always ask what they want me or the Government to do to help them. I am concerned not about what my colleagues think is right, but about what such women want. They never ask me for increased child benefit. Some of them say that they want the husband to pay for the children, but more often than not they say, "I do not want to pursue him in the courts because I am afraid of the consequences. I want to be able to go out and earn a bit of money so that I can support the children." They feel that it is more dignified to do that. Although the Bill will place much greater constraint on the father, I hope that when we consider the matter in another Bill we will take note of the feelings of women.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the women's obvious sense of pride in wanting to stand on their own feet, the father has a responsibility to make some provision? The hon. Member for Kingston

upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) spoke about limiting privacy. I hope that my hon. Friend will encourage such women to ensure that the absent father pays his dues, if only for the sake of the children. They would then enjoy a better standard of living.

Mrs. Gorman: I agree with my hon. Friend. Fatherhood and motherhood are for life, and fathers also have a responsibility. However, some women would not thank us for pursuing the husband or father through the courts in the way that we or the court might think right and proper. That is because of the consequences to the mother. It should be borne in mind that every unhappy marriage breakdown is a tragedy with its own circumstances.

Mr. Randall: The hon. Lady spoke about the aspirations and desires of women to whom she has spoken. She has said that their top priority is to be independent and earn a living. I am a male and not as qualified to speak on the matter as a woman, but in my experience many women with babies and children want to be able to stay at home. Although the decision must rest with the woman, it is obvious that she cannot stay at home with the children if she has a job. The hon. Lady does not seem to support the notion that some women might like to have that option and that their top priority might be some sort of guaranteed regular income, perhaps from the father.

Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman reinforces my argument that almost every case is different and that women have different views on the issue. I remind him that throughout history women with young children have worked. In Victorian times some mothers with 10 children went out to engage in cleaning or laundering or some other work.
Often an idealised view is taken of women staying at home and raising their children. That is the ideal, but the reality of most women's lives is not like that. Women often need to earn extra money. Of course, choice is what matters, but the fact is that 80 per cent. of mothers with young children stay at home with them whereas most mothers with school-age children—almost 70 per cent.—go out to work. It is not uncommon for women with children—of any age—to find that they need to work.
In the past, a woman who was widowed in a war would have raised her children without any help from the state. She would go out to work and do a fine job. Because women are multi-competent and extremely able, they can make their own way in life when they are left in the lurch by their husband. Indeed, many would rather do that than risk the punishment that might be meted out to them by the children's father if he is a violent man, and unfortunately in this world there are many men who mete out violence to women, mainly because women are not taught how to defend themselves—but that is another story.
I come to the role of the employer, which has already been mentioned, and to the question whether those concerned—either the woman receiving the payment or the man who is making the payment through a court order or by having the maintenance deducted from his salary—will want their employer to know that they are involved in such circumstances. It is impossible to prevent such circumstances from influencing the attitude of an employer. It is no good saying that that is private information because it will inevitably have an effect on the employer. I feel strongly that in deciding on this


legislation, if fathers are prepared to make a private arrangement, we must do all that we can to ensure that we do not lose that good will. Even if that involves only a mere 7,000 of the 82,000 cases that we are talking about, those 7,000 cases are still important and valuable. We must preserve the privacy of the man if he is prepared to do the right and decent thing and to reach a suitable arrangement with his wife.
After a woman has gone through all the court proceedings to get maintenance from her husband's wages deducted at source, she may be awarded just 1p per week maintenance in arrears. That sometimes happens even today because the magistrates think that they are taking account of the real circumstances in that case. If a woman goes through the process and is awarded only a derisory maintenance payment, she feels insulted. The Bill does not cover the amount of money that a magistrate may award, but I believe that the courts should be discouraged from making such decisions. A woman may have gone through many unhappy emotional experiences to get that far, and it is insulting for her to be treated in that way.
Sadly, the Bill is necessary in today's society because people's sense of responsibility has been undermined. That has increased under the welfare state, which has adopted the attitude that if an individual will not accept his or her responsibility, the state will do it. We will not cure the problem until we reverse the attitude that the state must be the last resort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said, we must stop ourselves always rushing in with the public purse, because that is what lies at the root of this problem of irresponsibility. If we do not expect people to be responsible, in many cases they will be irresponsible. That is a sad fact of human life.
Although I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, we have yet to debate many other aspects of this subject.

Mr. Randall: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to some of the comments that have been made in this interesting debate, which has been wide ranging although the Bill itself is narrow, dealing only with maintenance enforcement.
The Minister referred to the CBI levy and to the consultations that are taking place on that. I cannot remember whether I asked him to give us more detail about that, because it could have a crucial impact on debtors. I should also like to know more about the reciprocal arrangements with the EEC. As a result of 1992 and all that, the problems of maintenance enforcement could be seriously exacerbated as people move around the various member states of the Community more and more. Therefore, I was concerned when I heard that the reciprocal arrangements with the EEC are not working very well.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is not in his place. He talked about family life and said that it was of paramount importance. Although we would all agree with that, I submit that the Government's taxation policy is also a major factor causing the break-up of marriages and of family life—[ Interruption.] I am sorry, I see that the hon. Gentleman is here, albeit in a different seat. The gap between the better-off and the less

well-off is unquestionably growing in this country. Such pressures can cause the break-up of marriages—[Interruption.] That is a well-known fact, but other social pressures can also have an effect.

Mr. John Carlisle: rose——

Mr. Randall: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, although I had wanted to be brief because I made a long speech earlier.

Mr. Carlisle: I was sorry to have to ask the hon. Gentleman to give way, but he must give the House the evidence about the startling fact that he has just announced. He has said that the difference between the so-called "poor" on the one side and the so-called "rich" on the other has contributed towards the break-down of marriages. Where exactly is the evidence for that? If the hon. Gentleman does not have it, perhaps he could inform the House of it at a later date.

Mr. Randall: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware, because so much has been published about it, that, under this Government, there is a growing gap—I chose my words carefully—between the better-off and the less well-off in this country.

Mr. Carlisle: Possibly.

Mr. Randall: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.

Mr. Carlisle: I said, "Possibly".

Mr. Randall: Well, the hon. Gentleman does not know, but Opposition Members do know and it is a matter of concern to us. It is one reason why the Labour party has been amending its taxation proposals. We want to compensate for that sort of thing and, in our taxation policy, to do the things that would be good for families. The Government's taxation policies run contrary to the well-being of family life. Many of the troubles we have been discussing today emanate largely from that.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford made a good point about defaulting. He is absolutely right that we should take steps to prevent defaulting and thus to reduce the workload of the courts. There is no doubt that a lot of the time that is currently taken by the courts in dealing with maintenance orders and ensuring that payments are made could now be avoided.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to standing orders and payments. I do not want to go over the argument yet again, but I feel that the hon. Member for Chelmsford does not understand the people with whom we are dealing. Some of them—not all—are out to bust the system and once one recognises that, one realises that the system of payment to a wife must be strong enough and resilient enough not to be abused in this way. The hon. Gentleman made a good point in his question to the Minister about something on which I had touched—debtors who do not bother to turn up at court. The hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) also mentioned that point. We shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
The hon. Member for Luton, North referred to the effect that absent fathers have on the taxpayer. He spoke about the tower block stags in his constituency. I was pleasantly surprised by his description of the young lady who came to visit him in his constituency surgery. He


obviously has a soft spot for people, although that is not apparent from his political image. He reacted in an emotional rather than an objective way to her and I would have expected the latter.
The hon. Member for Billericay put great emphasis on irresponsible fathers and I intervened on that point. She also spoke about the desire of women not to receive an income from benefit but to be free to go out and earn. However, lone parents—I know that she does not like that term, but she knows what I mean—are in a difficult position because they cannot share the burdens of parenthood. Those with young children, especially if they have no support from their own parents, encounter great problems. If we are to provide choice for women in that position, and allow them to live comfortably, the top priority is to give them a guaranteed income. The hon. Lady speaks authoritatively on this and has given the House the benefit of her experience.
I look forward to the Committee stage. I hope that the amendments that will be tabled will encourage proper debate on the Bill, and, if agreed to, make it more effective. I have been encouraged by the way that hon. Members on both sides of the House have shared a belief in the basic principle underpinning the Bill, which is that those who have maintenance orders served against them should act responsibly and fulfil the terms of those orders. Where that does not happen, we need a mechanism to ensure that they are fulfilled. If the Committee can make that mechanism work as effectively as possible, we shall have given credit to the House of Commons. More importantly, we shall have helped people who desperately need an improvement in the system. The failure in the existing system has meant that children and families are enduring the distress and trauma to which we have all drawn attention. The Bill will help to alleviate those problems.

Mr. John Patten: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. This has been an interesting if short debate, founded on considerable agreement between the two parties represented in the Chamber—there has been no representative of the Liberal Democrats. We believe that something needs to be done and we have agreed that a useful Bill will be brought to fruition by the Committee.
We have heard some remarkable speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) gave us some important statistics and put his finger on a number of significant policy points. He also provided the House with a good keynote phrase for the Bill when he said something along the lines of, "It is better to prevent default than to have to enforce the measures after default." That underpins what the Bill is about and shows why it deserves an unopposed Second Reading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) demonstrated that authority and robustness, mixed with compassion, for which he is well known. He drew attention to the link between this Bill and its big brother or sister, the Child Support Bill, which is going

through another place. He treated the House to what was, for my money, all too short a passage on responsibility and the rebirth of it in the 1990s. He reflected on the adverse changes that have followed a diminution of family responsibility in the previous two decades. That passage will bear rereading.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) also spoke about responsibility and I agree with everything that she said on the issue. She spoke about divorce and the effects of that on society, about the equally important issue of working women and about how these provisions can help them. I suspect that the issues that interest her, as they interest me, will be debated when the Child Support Bill reaches this Chamber under the aegis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
I applaud what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay does to try to help women in a number of groups. Although they may not want to go to court to get the maintenance paid to them, perhaps because they fear physical violence—the police are doing more about domestic violence in this decade than they did in the previous decade—I ask her to urge them to think again about ensuring that those payments come. After all, it is the children of the marriage who will suffer. I hope that the quick and clean mechanism that the Bill will set in place will encourage women who face those problems to do something to ensure that the absent father, or the absent mother in about 3 per cent. of the cases, faces up to his or her responsibility. That motif of responsibility has run through each of the speeches made by my hon. Friends.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) will forgive me if I do not have a great deal of time to refer to all the points that he raised. However, I have time for a couple of important ones. He asked about what would happen if people refused to pay standing orders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, the courts have many ways to get money from the absent spouse if he will not pay by standing order. Furthermore, he can be fined up to £1,000. If he will not pay that fine on top of not paying the maintenance—most maintenance payments are in arrears of 15 weeks—there is always prison to encourage him to pay up. We do not want to send people to prison, but we must have that for a last resort.
Direct debits are not provided for because the court could not adequately exercise supervision over variations in direct debits. Under direct debit mandates, the person who gives the authority can vary the order, but the courts should have that power. The courts will have an important role and I believe that, after an initial surge of business, their business will diminish greatly, just as the amount of money flowing to spouses and children will increase greatly as a result of the provisions of this welcome Bill. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

7 pm

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance or ruling on the way in which we shall conduct our proceedings this evening. One of the difficulties lies with the decision whether the Bill should return to the House for further consideration in the light of the impending ruling by the European Court of Justice in the Leybucht bay case, which is recognised by the Government to be a similar matter. It is recognised also that that case is relevant because the promoters have sent a lawyer, as have the two Departments concerned, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, to observe the proceedings of the European Court.
I ask for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, because two material considerations will make this evening's proceedings less comprehensive and less well informed than they should be. First, we do not have an English translation of the proceedings of the European Court. Indeed, we shall not have one for another 10 days. That is what I am told in the letter that I received from the Treasury Solicitor of 11 February, which reads:
As requested I enclose a copy of the opinion of the Advocate-General in French.
I would not wish to trouble you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or other hon. Members with any quotations in French, which would not technically be in order. The letter continues:
We are having the opinion translated into English, but the translation will not be available until the end of the month.
It is explained that, unlike the French and German versions, the English translation will not be an authorised version.
As I have said, the promoter and the sponsoring Departments—the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment—recognise the relevance of the proceedings of the European Court and have sent lawyers, at public expense, to observe them at Luxembourg. The public, including my constituents, have paid for that. The lawyers observed the proceedings on 5 December and heard the Advocate-General's verdict.
When the House receives the Bill back from Committee on 18 February, it does not seem too much to ask that we should ensure that our consideration of it is fully informed. We should adjourn consideration until a proper translation of the proceedings of the European Court is available to us. As the production of the translation will coincide with the day on which the final judgment will be delivered—the Advocate-General's opinion is usually about 90 per cent. of the European Court's final opinion—an adjournment would enable us to take into account the verdict in our consideration of the Bill. It is thought that the verdict will be highly favourable to the objectors' case, and it should have a bearing on our consideration of the Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has referred to an opinion of the Advocate-General, which was prepared for the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg in the course of a case which the hon. Gentleman rightly said related to the proposed

development of the Leybucht bay in Germany. The document in itself does not have a direct bearing on the consideration stage of the Bill that we are discussing this evening. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to deploy the opinion in arguing that we should not proceed with consideration of the Bill, I shall be able to hear him. But I must tell him that all the documents that are directly relevant to our consideration of the Bill are available.

Mr. Morgan: Further to my point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I tabled a question last week because I was promised the document in question on 12 November by the Secretary of State for Wales. As nothing happened in the intervening three months, I tabled another question, which was answered on Thursday of last week. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales,
pursuant to his reply of 12 November 1990"—
he has promised that an English language translation of the Advocate-General's opinion would be placed in the Library shortly or as soon as possible after it was available. My question continued:
"Official Report, Column 49, when he will place in the Library an authorised English language version of the Advocate-General's opinion on the Leybucht bay case heard at Luxembourg before the European Court of Justice.
This is material, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it were not, I would not detain the House. The Secretary of State replied:
An English language version of the Advocate-General's opinion prepared by the court is unlikely to be available for some time. However, I understand that an English language translation prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be available very shortly. I shall be placing a copy of this in the Library of the House."—[Official Report, 14 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 589.]
What does the Welsh Office have to hide? Why has it not placed the translation in the Library so that we can read it? Why will it not do so until after the House has had a three-hour debate, during which we might be relying on our own attempts to translate the French, German or Dutch in which the opinion was originally written?

Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware that the judgment concerns special protection areas under the EEC's bird directive, and that neither Cardiff bay nor——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now entering into debate, and that turns on my response to the original point of order. Hon. Members are raising debating matters. The opinion to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has referred is not material to our consideration this evening.

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
I am pleased to ask the House to give consideration to the Bill, which I hope will speedily complete its remaining stages through the House. It may be useful if I mention the Leybucht bay case, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on a point of order. I appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you have said, that the opinion is not a document that is necessary for our debate this evening. It is important, however, for the House not to be misled. I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend referred to it. It appears that he has followed these matters with care and has read the


Advocate-General's legal opinion. He must now be aware that the Leybucht case is completely irrelevant to the Bill and does not help his argument.
I am surprised also that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West raised the language or languages in which the translation of the opinion is available. I am sure that he read the South Wales Echo On Saturday, and especially the article which set out liberal quotations from the opinion by opponents of the Bill. The opinion of the Advocate-General is that the Commission's complaints should be rejected. That is what he recommends on his interpretation of the facts of the case. He takes the view that the Federal Republic of Germany did not contravene the directive. He further suggests or recommends that the Commission should bear the costs of the disputing parties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has said, the Commission's interpretation of the directive is relevant as it applies to a special protection area, which Leybucht bay is but which Cardiff bay and the Severn estuary are not. He does not dissent from the view that the directive at article 2 is a balancing exercise, weighing up, on the one hand, the protection of birds and, on the other, public health and safety, economy, ecology, science, culture and recreation. I argue that in all the documents that are relevant to this evening's debate it can be demonstrated that matters of public health and safety, economy, ecology, science, culture and recreation demand the speediest possible passage of the Bill through the House.
I wish to repeat a simple plea. I ask that the House does not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, for a better environment and for better homes and jobs that meet their aspirations. I still retain the hope——

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for long, but perhaps I should tell him that I was in the Chamber on Thursday when, during business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked the Leader of the House about the whipping arrangements for a private Bill. Most of us believe that unofficial whipping has been taken place on private Members' Bills for a considerable time. My hon. Friend was able to unearth correspondence from the Government Chief Whip in which he advised Conservative Members to vote in accordance with his instructions this evening on this piece of private Member's legislation. The Leader of the House said that he was not responsible for whipping, and we know that that was a correct statement.
Once a Conservative Chief Whip starts putting in writing instructions to Tory Members to vote in a certain fashion on private Members' Bills, the procedure for such Bills is broken down. Surely this is a matter for you, Madam Deputy Speaker. What steps are to be taken?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman, like all other hon. and right hon. Members, knows, the Chair has a great many responsibilities, but concerning itself with what goes on in the Whips' Office is not one of them. I was in the Government Whips' Office for far too long to want to involve myself in such things now.

Mr. Michael: I am glad to be able to say that it is not a matter for me either. It is a matter for the Government how they vote. However, my hon. Friends and I have sought to persuade others to support our view. I retain the

hope that opponents of the Bill will be satisfied now that it has survived an arduous passage thus far. I hope they will be satisfied with the many safeguards that have been built into the measure, and will recognise the need for the major investment that the barrage itself will bring and for the private investment that will be attracted.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Many of us in the Opposition have no objection to investment for the benefit of my hon. Friend's constituents. However, we have a slight difference when it comes to the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds by the Government, to what purpose, I am not sure.

Mr. Michael: It is for the Government's representative to defend their decisions on public investment. However, I am rather surprised to hear an argument against public investment which would be of considerable benefit not only to my constituents but to those of my hon. Friend also. I hope that the public benefit argument will persuade my hon. Friend to support me in the Lobby at the end of this debate.

Mr. Rogers: I represent a constituency which, measured by any socio-economic indicator, is one of the poorest in the United Kingdom. That being the case, I certainly do not have any objection to public expenditure. However, I do not want to see public money being poured down the drain—or the barrage, or whatever.

Mr. Michael: I do not want to get involved in a knockabout, but, like my hon. Friend, I represent an area in which there is considerable deprivation. I am sure that he recognises, for instance, the deprivation in places like Newtown—in particular, on the dockside. Having worked with unemployed people in that area, and previously in the Ely area, I am very keen that misery and unemployment such as we saw in the past should not be repeated. It seems to me that this investment is the best means of avoiding that situation.
Cardiff is a great city. It is a string of communities, each with its own character. Indeed, my friend, Councillor Paddy Kitson, who is chairman of the county's economic development committee, likes to refer to the area as a string of pearls and of opportunities. The barrage and the development will reunite Cardiff with its seafront. It will offer a future to communities that in the past have lived in dirt and have known poverty. It will offer a new lease of life to the old communities, and new communities will have a life of their own to complement those.
The barrage will help to protect the city against the threat of flood. Last week the Department of the Environment issued a publication that referred to the need to consider this matter in the context of the future of our coasts. The barrage will provide a positive opportunity in this respect.
One matter on which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I have agreed from the beginning is that the Crown water issue needs to be treated with great seriousness. I am satisfied with the findings that have been made to date. Even Woolworths gave a promise that satisfied the Committee. Subject to public consultation on additional work, and to the expert advice on the basis of which the Secretary of State will be asked to make his judgment, all developments to date in this regard have been reassuring.
In the current recession, we face difficulties. The figures that were produced by the economic appraisal cover a period of 15 to 20 years. It is very important that we should see early progress in this development, so that Cardiff may be the subject of successful regeneration. In the past, we have seen successful regeneration of the city centre, and I am proud to have played my part in that process, which was led by the public sector in partnership with the private sector.
A massive project like this cannot be evaluated and summarised in a few minutes—which is all that is available to me this evening. The local councillors have spent much time on all the issues involved. The barrage proposals do not have uncritical support from the elected representatives. The support has been, and is, critical, careful, sceptical and conditional.

Mr. Morgan: My hon. Friend has referred to the successful redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff. I agree that the evolution of the retail central area has been remarkably successful. Does he agree—my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) may well have personal knowledge of this matter—that the successful redevelopment of Cardiff city centre took place only after a major change in strategy? The original overweaning, over-ambitious Ravenseft development was thrown out, and a much more logical evolution of the existing centre was agreed on. A big development would have wrecked the town centre. That happened because the people of Cardiff rose up and said, "We do not want this big development. It will cost too much, and will take away the Cardiff that we know."

Mr. Michael: As usual, my hon. Friend has run off down the tram-lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who at that time represented Cardiff, North, will recall the successful battle that led to the stopping of the Hook road. My hon. Friend equates two different issues. I was associated with the successful redevelopment of central Cardiff after 1974, and I believe that that project bears comparison with the redevelopment of south Cardiff. Both of those projects are based on a partnership between the public and the private sectors, involving an exhaustive examination of the issues, endeavouring to ensure that the public interest is properly served.
This Bill has survived the Select Committee procedures of both another place and this House. So long as the safeguards are in place, and so long as we test each piece of evidence to destruction, as we have done to date, local people will want the project to go ahead. The evidence, in terms of the provision of jobs and homes and of protection of the environment, remains overwhelming. That is true for my constituency in particular, but I submit that it is true for Cardiff as a whole—indeed, for south Wales as a region. It is for that reason that I return to my basic and simple plea to the House: do not dash the hopes of my constituents for a better future, a better environment, homes and jobs; support the motion and allow this Bill to make progress through the House.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I apologise for intervening in a debate on a Welsh matter. I do so for one reason about which I shall be brief.
I should like to know a little more about the provision that is made in the Bill for fish passes, which are essential if the run of migratory fish on the River Taff is to be preserved. I am glad to see that that is mentioned as a significant factor. I look forward to being able one day to fish the Taff. I want the promoter and his colleagues to be frank with the House and, if there is time, tell us that they are confident that the works set out in the Bill will have the desired effect.

Mr. Michael: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this has been the subject of very serious discussion since the earliest stages of the Bill—not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), with his considerable interest in fisheries matters, made sure that was so. For that reason—with the best possible advice that could be obtained, and following consultation with fisheries interests—the pass has been built into the proposals to ensure a better future for the fish, as well as for humans, following the building of this barrage.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have seen the provision in the Bill to build the pass, but I want to be sure that there is reason to suppose that the fish pass will work. The hon. Gentleman should know that some fish passes do not work. A great deal of money is spent on them and by the time that people find out that they do not work, it is too late. It is impossible effectively to restore a run to a river if the fish pass is deficient.

Mr. Michael: That is why there has been the closest consultation. It is a point which I have been careful to note in correspondence with the promoters from the early stages. We must ensure that the best possible advice is available and that a fish pass which will work is built.

Mr. Onslow: I am reassured to hear that. But I shall be mean and press the hon. Gentleman further. I should like to know what the fish pass is modelled on. Fish passes have been built in barrages elsewhere in the world but have not had the desired effect.

Mr. Morgan: I am pleased to see the right hon. Gentleman here. I can even detect the slightest hint of a Welsh accent when he speaks. The problem is not only the fish passes. In August during periods of low flow when oxygen levels are low sewin—sea trout, for those who are more familiar with the fishing industry outside Wales—make their first run. That causes a particular problem because it is the period of minimal oxygen levels. The fish swim up the River Ely into my constituency. There are about three miles of narrow river channel from the edge of the lake after the fish will have to negotiate the fish pass. They then go up the River Ely to Ely weir. They have begun to do that only in the past two years because of the construction of sewage works further up the River Ely. We are expected to believe that when those sewin travel up the River Ely through my constituency in August at periods of low rainfall and therefore low oxygen, a mobile oxygen machine running underneath them will preserve the oxygen levels as they traverse the long, narrow river channel until they reach the better oxygen levels under Ely


weir. Anyone who believes that the sewin will not be disturbed by the distinctly odd feeling of having an oxygen machine running a couple of feet underneath them does not know about the fishing industry. I shall be interested to hear my hon. Friend's expert opinion on the matter.

Mr. Onslow: I am not sure that I am the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend or that I am an expert. It is the first time that I have ever heard of the oxygen machine of which he speaks.

Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. I said that the matter was under detailed discussion with the fisheries interests and the National Rivers Authority. Agreement has been reached on water quality and a fish monitoring programme, which is well under way. There is agreement in principle on the design of the fish pass. Discussions are continuing to ensure that the fish pass is the most effective possible. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to discussions in Committee which went into the matter in some detail. I shall be interested, when he has had an opportunity to read them, to hear any further points that he has to make.

Mr. Onslow: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am anxious not to delay the House, but I am equally anxious that assurances are given in our proceedings in the House, rather than taken on trust.
I notice that clause 69(6) of the Bill contains a provision which may have escaped the notice of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). It says:
When so required by the rivers authority the undertakers shall discharge water through the high-level sluices of the barrage for the passage of migratory fish.
That may be of some help in this context, although it will not necessarily help much once the fish have passed through the barrage. That is another matter to be considered.
I am serious about these matters because estuarial barrages are a great obstacle to migratory fish. It is no use pretending otherwise. So that the fish can complete their life cycle, smolts must be able to get downstream to the sea without damage. I see nothing specific in the Bill that requires the undertakers to make provision for that. I should be more content if I could see some written evidence, rather than having to take an assurance across the Floor of the House. I cannot reasonably ask for that this evening. I promise the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that I am trying to be reasonable. I do not seek to press him.

Mr. Michael: I shall be happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.

Mr. Onslow: I am glad to have that assurance and I look forward to seeing the evidence. Until I have such evidence I shall be reluctant to allow an irrevocable measure to be passed and implemented.
I have an additional reason for being unhappy about the Bill. Elsewhere in south Wales there are threats and projects to put estuarial barrages on other rivers around the Welsh coast. The Usk is one of which I am aware. I should be surprised if it were possible easily to convince a committee that the run of salmon on the Usk could be preserved once the barrage was installed.
I am not being dogmatic. I do not seek to be obstructive, but if a river is lost to migratory fish through the construction of a barrage, the barrage will not be taken

away so that the fish can come back. We need to know about such matters before we make decisions, rather than find out about them afterwards.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I did not take a particular interest in the Cardiff bay barrage when I first heard about it several years ago. My interest was aroused when I watched the video provided to every Member of Parliament by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds two or three years ago. Just one viewing of the video convinced me that there were major environmental problems with the barrage. In particular, wading birds and migratory birds use the mud flats at the site and the proposals would take away their habitat. That film, entitled "Half a million dunlin dinners", would impress anyone who is interested in the preservation of species of birds.
The other argument which convinced me of the danger of the barrage is the problem of the nitrates and phosphates which the Taff and Ely would bear if the barrage were built. An ideal site for eutrophication would be created. In our debates on the Bill in the House the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is not with us tonight, outlined in detail the strong environmental objections to the barrage.
But my main reason for speaking against the Bill is its prohibitive cost. I am not adverse to public expenditure. Labour Members believe strongly that public expenditure can be used to stimulate private expenditure. But we must consider cost-benefit and value for money. In our earlier debates a cost of £82 million was given. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said in the previous debate, the true cost will probably be four or five times that. We could be spending £400 million or even £500 million of public money. I grant that there will be a multiplier effect. The investment may be multiplied five or even 10 times. But with the economy in its present state, a recession or even a slump looming and public services in their present state, I wonder whether that level of investment is justified and would have sufficient benefits to the economy and in terms of jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) circulated to all Welsh Members a feature from the South Wales Echo describing the scheme and some of its effects and advantages. It estimated that the investment would trigger £2,000 million of private and public investment. The £400 million put into the scheme would be multiplied by five. Over a period of 10 or 15 years it was estimated that 24,000 jobs would be created. That is impressive. It would be marvellous for Cardiff and the people who live within a 20-mile radius of the project. But at a cost of £2,000 million for 24,000 jobs, we are talking about £80,000 per job created. I wonder whether public money could be used more effectively. In a boom, the private sector may look to the service industries, up-market housing and the type of leisure facility that the scheme would provide—as in the docklands area in London—but times have changed. We are no longer in that brief period of economic miracle; we are in recession. Will private money follow the public money? I do not think so.
Last week, in an economic debate in the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) quoted a Conservative Back Bencher,


talking about present unemployment, who said that some of the jobs which are now disappearing, because of the recession which is hitting the south and the south-east so hard, should perhaps not have been jobs in the first place. In a sense they are yuppie jobs. But those are the sort of jobs that we should be trying to attract to Cardiff. Considering our present economic climate, will that type of job be provided?
If the Bill is passed, my main worry is that the scheme ignores the real needs of Wales. If £400 million of public money is available to invest in Wales, let us not invest all of it in Cardiff and depend upon a trickle-down effect spreading to the valleys, and perhaps as far as my constituency. Many constituencies in the valleys, and in west and north Wales, are in a state of deprivation. That £400 million must come from somewhere. It will come from cuts in other parts of the Welsh Office budget. That money is needed in the health service, for housing, for agriculture and to create better-paid jobs throughout Wales.
I am certain that if we had a Welsh assembly to allocate the resources of the Welsh Office—I hope that we shall before the end of the decade—and if that assembly were debating this proposal this evening, it would not let it through because it is a poor way to use public money. The scheme was wrong in 1988, when I attended my first debate on it. Frankly, given our present economic situation, the project is crazy.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am glad of this opportunity to speak, but I assure the House that I shall try to be brief and I shall explain my reasons in my few remarks.
I share the attitude of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I have what I think are well-founded hopes about what will be achieved by the Bill when it is finally enacted. I do not share the reservations of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) about the use of public expenditure, nor about the fact that there will merely be a trickle-down effect for the rest of south Wales.
I am confident that these large sums of public money will be more than repaid because of the way that they will improve south Cardiff, the economy of south Cardiff and of south Wales. The money will be repaid because of the way it will increase the capital value of property and rental values. At the end of this very large equation, I am sure that the balance sheet will show a decidedly healthy profit for all those who invest in it.
I do not agree with the implied criticism of there being a mere trickle-down effect. I think that there will be a natural evolution, and that the scheme will benefit all of south Wales. That benefit is likely to flow in a tangible form to points as far away from the capital city of Wales as Carmarthen. The transformation of Cardiff will reach out, and will make the capital city of Wales the dominant city in the western quarter of Great Britain, overtaking Bristol and placing us in a higher ranking. Of course the hinterland—the rest of south Wales—cannot be separated from that.
It is significant that the scheme is the one feature that does not seem to have been affected by what we refer to as

the recession, or downturn in growth of the economy. In south Wales, I keep hearing about the amount of interest that exists in the redevelopment of south Cardiff, and no one has been dissuaded. There is so much positive, keen enthusiasm that it is the bright spot in the crown.
The reason why I wish to be brief tonight is that I detect a real feeling of exasperation in my constituency and elsewhere in Cardiff as to why the Bill has taken so long to proceed through the House and the other place. I often meet people who ask me to explain why on earth it is taking so long. Why is this the third parliamentary Session that we have been considering the scheme? I do not want to frustrate proper examination of the Bill, but the feeling in Cardiff and elsewhere is that surely, by now, the House should have spent enough time to enable it to come to a final conclusion—ideally a final conclusion that will allow the Bill the barrage and the redevelopment of south Cardiff to proceed.
I must take this opportunity to say how hard everyone involved in the Bill—the promoters, south Glamorgan council and Cardiff bay development corporation—have worked to provide such a thorough well-thought-out package which is of proven advantage to the capital city of Wales. Everyone concerned has also taken every opportunity to examine all the questions and to try to respond to all the doubts.
One aspect that I have not been greatly involved in is the one that my right hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) mentioned—fish passes and how they will be affected by the barrage.
The promoters of the Bill are determined to ensure that every reasonable step is taken to overcome or to assuage any and every objector. As a representative of the capital city of Wales, I can take pride in knowing who is involved with the Bill, both on the council and from the Cardiff bay development corporation.
I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily, nor do I wish the House or the Bill to be detained unnecessarily. The Bill is excellent. It represents so many of our hopes that it deserves to succeed. I hope that it will succeed. I hope that we will approve the Bill this evening and that we will speedily move on to bring the scheme to the proper conclusion that it deserves, at the earliest possible opportunity.

Dr. Kim Howells: Like the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), I shall be brief. Many of my constituents would not greatly care if a decision were taken to build a barrage and if Cardiff decided to flood itself—if that happens. I do not share those views, as I am fond of docklands Cardiff and always have been. I entirely agree that there is an umbilical cord linking the coalfield and the docks which will never be broken.
However, I and my constituents find it strange that suddenly such a large sum of public money—whether £82 million or £500 million, another figure which has been quoted here tonight—can be found and be made available for the sort of scheme that we in Pontypridd are familiar with in many ways. We should like to develop our town centre, and to build a ring road to take away traffic, which would improve the quality of life for people in the town and attract jobs to Pontypridd. We do not seem to be able to find that sort of money. I wonder why. I do not know whether the money is going to Cardiff. Perhaps the Welsh


Office think of the barrage scheme as a flagship investment for the future. I am wary of flagship projects—I remember that the poll tax was the Government's flagship project and we all know what happened to that.
I am dubious about the scheme, but if Cardiff wants to do it that is its business. I should have preferred Cardiff to debate the matter at a public inquiry, rather than using the back-door method of a private Bill, but that is another matter.

Mr. Michael: It should be made clear that, as my hon. Friend may be aware if he takes his tongue out of his cheek, because navigable waters are involved, this is the only procedure that can be followed. The one thing on which we can unite in the House is that the private Bill procedure is unsatisfactory and needs to be changed. I think that it is being more unfair to me and to the promoters than to the opponents, but that is a matter for debate.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend, who is always most constructive. Regardless of that, a great many people in south Wales feel wary about the proposal because it seems that large sums of public money will be used to prime the pump of the south Cardiff economy. I hope that many people in my constituency will benefit as a result. I have asked the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), through parliamentary questions, how many extra jobs would be created as a result of building the barrage, and how that number would compare with the number that could be created if the barrage were not built. There is no quantifiable figure. All kinds of theories are possible, but there are no figures that mean anything.
The promoters of the Bill might care to consider what would happen if, instead of a trickle up from Cardiff, there was a trickle down from somewhere like Pontypridd if we began investing in it. I sense that we are not investing in Pontypridd because it does not have the appeal to big business that the Cardiff bay investment may have. That may be right. Geographically, Pontypridd is much smaller. We do not have the space or the mud flats to flood. It is a different kind of community. Not only does Pontypridd feed a population down to south Cardiff, but it also feeds the waters which will be dammed by the barrage.
There has been talk about what will happen to the fish runs. I should like to know what will happen to the sewage runs which will go into the lagoon created by the barrage. I ask Welsh Office Ministers to take the message to the Secretary of State for Wales and to the Prime Minister that at any time they like they may come to my constituency, and I will guarantee them a huge audience if they will dive head first into the River Taff and show their confidence in the quality of the water by swimming in it. When either the Secretary of State for Wales or the Prime Minister does that, I shall be more than glad to support the Bill because it will mean that the waters of the Taff are clean.

Mr. Rogers: Might not it be better to invite the chairman of the National Rivers Authority to Pontypridd to swim in the River Taff? He could come with a dual purpose, because I understand that he is also connected with Associated British Ports, which has a very strong vested financial interest in the development of the barrage. He could kill two birds with one stone. I believe that they literally would be killed if they dived into the River Taff.

Dr. Howells: That is a remarkable suggestion. I am sure that the chairman of Welsh Water and the chairman of the National Rivers Authority have more sense than to dive into the River Taff at the moment because it is filthy, as is the River Ely, which would also flow into the barrage; indeed, it is even more filthy than the Taff. If they accepted the offer, they would both need their heads read.

Mr. Morgan: May I make an alternative suggestion? My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) may be alluding to the Prime Minister's well-known affection for HP sauce. If he sees the River Taff flowing past my hon. Friend's house, he will think that it is a river of HP sauce.

Dr. Howells: That is stretching things a bit.
There is a serious point. I cannot see the sense of building a barrage across two rivers when those rivers are filthy. I have never heard from the Government Benches or from any other quarter that the rivers will be cleaned before the barrage is built. I also do not believe the guarantees that I have had about the magic barge which will float on top of the lagoon and will clear the build-up of nitrates and phosphates which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Michael: I do not want to stop the entertainment value of my hon. Friend's contribution, but I must make the point that associated with the building of the barrage is a proper means of dealing with the sewage outfalls into the bay. There is also the fact that what comes into the bay from the Severn estuary will be kept out by the barrage. I hope that I speak for my hon. Friend and myself when I say that we want to see a clean-up of the sewage outfalls into both rivers in the longer-term future, irrespective of the barrage.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend. I am glad that he shares my wish to see the rivers cleaned. The problem is that I wish for many things, but it does not seem that they will come to fruition in the near future. I certainly do not see hard proposals for the cleaning of either of those rivers, any more than I do for the cleaning of the Severn estuary in general. I wonder whether the remedial construction works on the sewage outfalls which my hon. Friend has talked about will simply collect some of the sewage which will still flow through my constituency in both rivers and take it out as an expedient rather than make a real attempt to clean the rivers from source. It is a serious point.
If the Welsh Office is prepared to put public money into the barrage project, it should also think about the 500,000 people who live along the Taff and its tributaries who suffer from the filth and the litter that gather on the banks and from the fact that, as communities, we cannot face our rivers. When we talk of redeveloping our communities, we think of doing it as we did originally, by turning our backs on the rivers. It is a scandal that there seems to be one vision for south Cardiff, but quite another for the valleys. Only small sums seem to be available for projects in the valleys while there is a lot available for south Cardiff.
To return to the point I made earlier, there is an umbilical link between south Cardiff and the valleys. South Cardiff grew up entirely because of the development of the coal mines which were sunk along the banks of the Taff, the Ely, the Rhondda, the Cynon and the other rivers


which will feed into the barrage. It would be good if the project could help transform the coal communities which have been so cruelly run down over the past 10 years.
The promoters of the Bill should understand that development-led projects such as the barrage must take into account greater environmental considerations and not just the wildlife which will be affected within the boundaries of the project. They should take account of the fact that Welsh Water still allows raw sewage to flow into the Taff, the Ely and other rivers in south Wales, and that we cannot redevelop our towns using the rivers as focal points. I should like those rivers to resemble the rivers in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells). I should love to see our rivers crystal clear, like those that I swam in as a child. That should not be a demand which is beyond our making.
The Government have allowed the water authorities enough leeway. They have allowed them to get off with so-called derogations for a number of years before they have to carry out the real remedial projects which are needed. The point is worth making on the Bill that if it is good enough for south Cardiff, it is good enough for the valleys. If there is an umbilical link, it should extend to all aspects of the project. The valleys should enjoy the kind of environment that the promoters say will be enjoyed by those who live around the lagoon and the barrage.
I do not want the project to fail if it can be proved to be good. On the other hand, I do not want it to eclipse what is desperately needed in the hinterland of south Wales. I want all the schemes to be carried out, but not in the next decade or the next century. The people of south Wales have suffered long enough from filthy rivers and from an environment scarred by industrial development and by slapdash development for so many years. It is time the Welsh Office began to regard the hinterland as an area which is as fit as south Cardiff for flagship development.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I did not intend to speak, but I was stimulated—perhaps "provoked" is a more appropriate word—to do so by the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). Although he may find it strange, I support the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and, indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) and for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones).
Like the hon. Member for Carmarthen, I have taken a close interest in the Cardiff bay development since its conception. Like many hon. Members representing other parts of Wales, I have attended presentations organised by the Cardiff Bay development corporation, and have discussed the issues with the corporation. This visionary project will, in my view, transform the economy of south Cardiff, and will have a multiplier effect on the wider local economy. There is bound to be some delay because of the current economic downturn, but that will do no more than temporarily hold back the ultimate economic growth that the development will bring. It will make a major contribution to the economy of south Wales.
If the politics of envy are to enter into the debate, perhaps I am entitled—as my constituency is even further from Cardiff than that of the hon. Member for Carmarthen—to comment. Large sums of public money

have already been spent in my constituency, and in the whole of north Wales. I pay tribute to south Wales Members, who have, for instance, supported the massive investment in the dualling of the A55: such public-sector pump-priming makes a major contribution to the regeneration of the north Wales economy. An enormous amount—£500 million—has been or is being spent on the construction of the road. Public sector pump-priming has helped to establish a number of industrial estates in my constituency, in Wrexham Maelor, and in Alyn and Deeside—which, of course, are both represented by Labour Members.
We have seen how effective that public sector pump-priming has been in stimulating private sector investment, no more notably than in the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). It has brought about considerable development in, for instance, business parks, such as at St. David's, Ewloe. I am convinced that the same will happen in Cardiff. As Welsh Members, we are all surely entitled to take some pride in the revival of our capital city as a symbol of the Principality.
I appreciate the concern of hon. Members who represent the valleys about the deprivation and environmental pollution that confronts them. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be not only petty but unwise to obstruct and delay this project further. As I have said, as a north Wales Member, I have intruded in the debate with some trepidation, but I do not resent this massive investment in south Cardiff. I want to see the models and the presentation come to life; I expect a great and proud city to come to fruition through this major economic development. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North that this project will help Cardiff surpass Bristol, and act as a draw for the many companies that are now leaving the south-east.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen is, in a way, my hon. Friend: in the Select Committee, we have discussed the connection between Wales and the channel tunnel. The French have been investing massively in their infrastructure, because they expect the tunnel to help to develop the Pas de Calais. We on the other hand are concerned about further development in the golden triangle represented by London-Paris-Hamburg. I am very critical of the Government's lack of investment in infrastructure to meet the challenge of the tunnel. We have fallen way behind the French in terms of both rail and road investment.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) agrees with me on this point. He was also a member of the Select Committee during that inquiry and he is a much greater expert on French affairs than I am: he visits the country so frequently. We must ensure that the necessary draw is created. I hope that the Government will also soon come to their senses and invest in the necessary infrastructure. I think that Cardiff has the potential to be a major attraction to companies post-1992, and after completion of the channel tunnel.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The hon. Gentleman has interpreted my comments as representing the politics of envy. That may be partly true; but politics is the language of priorities, and I do not think that this development should be our number one priority now. We are running a massive balance-of-payments deficit, and we are in an economic recession. Surely public money should be going into manufacturing rather than service industry.

Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman knows that I differ with him on this point, because I have done so when sitting next to him in the Select Committee. I do not believe in this distinction between the service and manufacturing industries; I want Wales to have a share of both. Indeed, I should dearly like more service industries in my constituency. I have been lucky that, as a result of the enterprise zone initiated by the Government and opposed originally by the Labour party, many new full-time male manufacturing jobs have been created in my constituency; but, in any local economy, there should be a balance between service industry and manufacturing jobs.
The hon. Gentleman is leading us up a cul-de-sac, distracting us from the main issue. He speaks of his contempt for "yuppie jobs", but not all service jobs are "yuppie jobs". The service industries must themselves be serviced, and jobs will, I believe, be created not only for yuppies but for many other people in Cardiff as the local economy is developed. That will result in an increase in wage levels, something that I would expect the hon. Gentleman to welcome.
We must make Cardiff more attractive. I think that the Cardiff bay development will contribute to the economy of not only the city but the whole surrounding area of south Wales, and will also improve the quality of life enjoyed by the local people. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. Both Houses have considered the Bill for long enough and in enough detail, having debated such detailed matters as fish passes as we have today. It is time for the Bill to be passed, and for this development to be implemented so that the vision of the former Secretary of State, Lord Crickhowell, and many others can become a reality and the life and economy of our great capital city can be transformed.

Mr. Allan Rogers: As we saw in the debate in December 1989, there is always the danger of our slipping into a bad-tempered mode, because those speaking for or against the measure are mostly Welsh Members and are generally believed—at least by the opposite side—to be speaking on behalf of vested interests.
We in Rhondda, however, have no particular vested interest in the Bill's success or otherwise. We detect no envy in the Bill: if it is possible for the city of Cardiff to develop, we will support that wholeheartedly. Living in the hinterland as I do, with many constituents working in Cardiff, I see a spin-off for my constituency if Cardiff prospers; but I would prefer the money—various figures have been mentioned, but I believe that about £400 million is being put into the scheme—to be invested directly in areas whose need is far more urgent.
The proceedings on the Bill in this House, then in Select Committee and again here have demonstrated that the development of the city of Cardiff does not depend upon it. Development is taking place in the docklands area without the barrage. We are not against public investment in the docklands area. However, all that the barrage does is to create a lake. It will not create an acre of ground on which factories and offices can be built. All that it creates is a lake where people can moor their boats. This huge investment is designed to create a pleasant atmosphere in order to attract investment. However, investment is going on in Cardiff without the barrage.

Mr. Michael: I appreciate the fact that some of my hon. Friend's remarks have been good natured and generous. Does he accept, however, that some of the information that I provided privately, both to my hon. Friend and to other colleagues, shows that the barrage development will lead to investment and jobs that would not come to Cardiff without it?

Mr. Rogers: Yes, that is an interesting question. However, the development of Cardiff bay and the docklands area is continuing apace. My constituency is probably the cultural centre of Wales. If any of my constituents want to lay on a cultural programme, they have to use St. David's hall or County hall in Cardiff. That is right in the middle of the docklands area. It is a wonderful new development, which I applaud. The area in Cardiff that needed to be redeveloped was badly run down. At one time my brother was warden of the Central boys club in Cardiff. I served in the Army with many lads from the docklands area. I boxed in the same Army team as many of the illustrious boxers who come from that area. I know them well. The docklands area needed to be redeveloped. However, we do not want a barrage. No land will be created by it.
One wonders why the Bill is being backed so strongly by the Government. Why are they so anxious to pump money into it? The scheme was the idea of a previous Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell. He is a director of Associated British Ports which owns 160 acres in the Cardiff bay area. The same ex-Secretary of State is now the chairman of the National Rivers Authority. When Cardiff city rightly submitted schemes to him to attract development money he said, "You can have the urban development corporation or nothing at all." Over the years the UDC has tried to fit its plan into the framework that was constructed at that time.

Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that the first development—the creation of County hall, the flagship of south Cardiff—was undertaken by South Glamorgan county council?

Mr. Rogers: I do not disagree. I pay tribute to both Cardiff city council and to the county council. They are doing all that they can to develop the area. However, there is a huge private sector interest in the development which far exceeds any previous public sector interest in it. If it could be demonstrated to me that the barrage would add substantially to the land bank in the Cardiff docklands area, I should support it. However, it does not.
The valley communities of south Wales also need huge investment. Successive Governments have provided it. Coal tips have been reclaimed for industrial development. The valley communities accept that the land bank needs to be increased. However, the barrage will not increase the amount of land available in the Cardiff area for industry and offices.
If another scheme had been adopted, the environmental and geological problems associated with the barrage would not exist. It would have confined reclamation to the eastern side of the estuary. It would have added to the amount of land available and it would not have had the environmental implications of the barrage, including its impact on wildlife. Moreover, the citizens of Cardiff object strenuously to the possibility of ground water flooding their homes.
It is not wise for politicians to set themselves up as experts. However, politicians must have a reasonable knowledge of any issue if they are to understand the arguments. When I read the plethora of documents that were pushed towards us when the scheme was first mooted, I was struck by the lack of research into issues such as ground water. I understand that the Select Committee asked for a second opinion. However, it was not sought and the report was published without that additional information being made available.
When I queried that at the presentation, the promoters treated me in a most hostile way. I thought to myself that something must be wrong, so I looked further into it. I wondered why they had been so hostile to my question. I read the report again and found that the technical implications of the scheme had not been properly thought out. The initial report contained such phrases as, "When the full appraisal has been completed." It was then that the flooding problem for some of the homes in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) became a real issue. That possibility still exists. According to the technical appraisal, no viable solution has been found.
It serves no purpose to say that, if we cannot have it, nor can Cardiff. That is a self-defeating argument. The whole area of Cardiff and south Wales needs investment and development, however that takes place. If development in Cardiff benefits the valleys, that will be to our good. However, £400 million of public money will be spent on the scheme and the benefits will accrue to private business. No real public interest will be served. That money is being invested because of the private interests of Tory politicians, who sucked the city councils and county councils into the scheme by giving them no options in the beginning.
I object to the building of the barrage. If there were a Cardiff Bay Bill and £100 million were being invested in the Cardiff bay area, I should support it 10 times over. But as long as it is a badly founded and ill-thought-through Bill for a narrow sector of private interest, I shall oppose it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Bennett): As the House knows, the Government have a substantial interest in the Bill's objectives.
The barrage proposal has been the subject of detailed and wide-ranging studies. We have given these careful consideration, weighing in particular the economic and environmental aspects. Our conclusion is that the case for the barrage is strong, in view of the substantial economic, recreational and other benefits that will arise, not just for Cardiff but for the wider area of south Wales. This view was not seriously challenged by the majority of the Committee which examined the Bill in detail last year.
The Committee heard a great deal of evidence on ground water and, understandably, sought a number of undertakings from the promoters before allowing the Bill to proceed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also gave an undertaking that, in considering the further work on ground water requested by the Committee, he would satisfy himself that all the relevant economic,

technical and safety criteria could be met before giving consent for public funds to be used for constructing the barrage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) told the House on 17 October 1990, to assist him in that task, my right hon. Friend has appointed an eminent specialist, Mr. Roy Stoner, director of the Institute of Irrigation Studies at the university of Southampton, as an independent expert adviser. The House should be aware that Mr. Stoner has broadly endorsed the approach taken by the promoters' consultants in carrying out the further work. Copies of Mr. Stoner's report have been placed in the Library of the House. For its part, Cardiff Bay development corporation has confirmed that many of Mr. Stoner's suggestions have been taken on board and has given assurances that the remainder will be incorporated in the further studies.

Mr. Rogers: I understood that, on 14 May, the Select Committee appointed Dr. John Miles to act as a second opinion on behalf of the objectors to the barrage so that the Committee could ensure that the objectors would not be flannelled by the consultants being paid by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Dr. John Miles was not given the opportunity of providing that second opinion on the interim report. Those are the facts that I have been given; if the Minister says that they are not true, perhaps he could say what happened to Dr. John Miles' report because the publication of the interim report came out of the blue and its contents have not been verified by a second independent opinion.

Mr. Bennett: I cannot comment on what the hon. Gentleman says about the Committee, but Mr. Stoner is producing an independent report for the Committee as a result of the remarks that were made by the Committee in its final report. It will ensure that all the concerns put forward by people in Cardiff during the Committee stage are taken into account.
The report on the further ground water studies and the promoters' response are expected to be submitted to my right hon. Friend by the end of August. They will be placed in the Library of the House. Interested parties will be able to make written representation to my right hon. Friend about the contents of the documents over a three-month period.
That takes account of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister, in the course of his prepared statement, refer to the reasons for not allowing public hearings or meetings? Why is he allowing only written statements after the Committee discussed public consultation? The concept of simply sending letters to the Secretary of State is a narrow definition of public consultation. The Committee promised public consultation. The Chairman of the Committee is present and may be able to elaborate on what the Committee had in mind. The Secretary of State interpreted it as letters only, but I do not think that that is what the Committee intended.

Mr. Bennett: The submission of written comments is a well-established method of consultation and is used for hospital and school closures. Publicity and guidance on the arrangements for representations will be issued nearer the time. The Committee that examined the Bill was not specific about the arrangements that will apply during the


three-months consultation period. I am satisfied that the submission of written comments strikes the right balance between a thorough examination of the issues and the need to come to a decision without undue delay. The independent adviser will have all the written representations before him and will be able to take them into account in his report to my right hon. Friend.
Once my right hon. Friend has considered the report of the further studies, the promoters' response and the representations made to him in the light of Mr. Stoner's further advice, I expect him to be able to announce his decision on public funding and the final position of the protected property line in the early part of 1992.
The Government have already made available or announced very significant funding for the corporation—over £190 million to the financial year 1993–94. Provided that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the criteria in respect of the further work on ground water can be met, we intend to honour the long-standing commitment that the cost of the barrage will be met by the development corporation with the assistance of grant-in-aid from the Welsh Office.
I hope, therefore, that the House will allow the Bill to proceed to its remaining stages.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the Minister's one and only contribution to the debate, I thought that he would at least inform the House about the wider public expenditure consequences of the Bill. The Minister bothered to write to individual Members, including me—[Interruption.]—and he should have developed the case about the Bill's public expenditure implications.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is an important matter for debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Rogers: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that the Minister finds this matter amusing. He muttered that we did not ask him. During my speech, I referred at least four times to the huge sums of money being invested. The Minister adds no dignity to his office or to the House by refusing properly to answer questions on the most crucial issue in this debate. We shall take his silence as an ominous sign that the amount of money being spent is as huge as we said it was.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These are matters for debate and those are not points of order for the Chair. Members who have not yet spoken can raise those matters as the debate progresses.

Mr. Rowlands: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should like to make a further request and ask the Minister to seek to catch your eye to tell the House what he has stated in correspondence about the nature and character of the public expenditure implications of the Bill.

Mr. Ian Grist: The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) could simply quote the Minister's letter, which contains the explanations. Hon. Members who have not seen it may he interested in it.
I am delighted to be the third of the four Cardiff Members to support the Bill. I came to Cardiff about 28 years ago, and I remember seeing the docks run down and the increasing dereliction of the area. The transformation now taking place and which the barrage promises will make the city world famous again. It has taken a long time to reach this stage, which is a great shame. We would have come further down the road but for some rather wayward opposition to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) became a Member in 1987. This measure had already been launched by then. He took his time in finding his Opposition to the Bill and, having heard voices, decided which way to go. I regret the fact that some valley Members have followed a beggar-my-neighbour, envious approach. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is an honourable man. I enjoy reading his comments on Sunday and treasure his company.

Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) made some rather unparliamentary criticisms of my motivation for opposing the barrage and said that I had heard voices. I should have liked to put him firmly in his place, but he did not give me an opportunity to do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my duty to listen to genuine points of order, and I must do so. I was under the impression that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) was coming to the end of a sentence and was about to give way.

Mr. Grist: Actually, I was not about to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will be well able to look after himself when he speaks.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman said that I had heard voices and had taken my time before opposing the Bill. I remind him that the Cardiff Bay development corporation was formed in April 1987. I became a Member in June 1987. I read all the evidence that had been presented to the House of Lords and, within hours of finishing reading it, made my decision and openly declared my opposition to the Bill. In what other way does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it would be proper for a Member with constituency interests to make a decision on a private Bill? Does he go along with the Conservative party Whip, as Ministers always have, as evidenced by the Conservative party Whip of 7 February, which I have in my possession?

Mr. Grist: As a development officer for the county council, the hon. Gentleman probably knew about and well understood these proposals.

Mr. Morgan: Rubbish.

Mr. Grist: That is what I believe. The hon. Gentleman overestimated the opposition in his constituency, which


was shown in local elections. The seats were won by local candidates who opposed Labour party members who were against the development.
The Bill does wonders for not just Cardiff but south Wales. Cardiff is the capital. It includes St. David's hall and a great new shopping centre. It is the biggest city in Wales and is a magnet for the area. Roads radiate from it. As I am sure the hon. Member for Pontypridd remembers, development of the A470 was stuck in the 1970s, until the Government built it. That road provides access for the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others. A journey to Merthyr Tydfil on the A470 now takes 35 or 40 minutes. New roads in the area have created a close-knit community. The fame and wealth that this development will bring to south Wales will spill out. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will have more people going to the Rhondda heritage centre because of the fame of south Wales. Other people will learn about the advantages of the valleys and the opportunities available to them.
The Bill is not just about south Cardiff, although, heaven knows, it is about reviving that part of the city that has fallen on bad times.

Mr. Rogers: I fail to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Rhondda heritage centre is undergoing construction, before the building of the barrage, and the A470 was built 10 or 15 years ago. It is nonsense to suggest that those developments might take place in the valleys because of the Bill or to try to tie them in to the Bill.

Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that the Rhondda heritage centre has been completed and that it no longer needs money to support it, I am sure that the Welsh Office will be interested to learn that. I do not believe that the development has been completed. It still needs support.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd talked about space. If he knew Cardiff, he would know that it is ringed by the bay in the south, the M4 in the north and putative green belts to the west and the east. We need the new land that will be opened up by this development. The barrage will bring a focus to south Cardiff. It will give value to the land and attract industry and investment. It will bring 30,000 jobs and 6,000 houses. Those houses will not be just for yuppies, whom the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) goes on about. A quarter of them will be for social housing. There will be a housing mix, just as happened in the Tarmac development.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd would like to know what the water standards will be. The water near the dock which the county council built will be the type of water in the bay. One would not necessarily want to fall into it but it would not do any great harm if one did so. Fish live in it, birds use it, boats manoeuvre on it and there are displays there. The barrage will bring similar development.
If Opposition Members turn down the Bill, they will be looking a gift horse in the mouth. They will not succeed in defeating the Bill, but they will muddy the water. They have not appreciated the evidence given to two Select Committees. Both Select Committees set a precedent by going to Cardiff to hear the views of the people and to see for themselves. That was a new step. No similar Bill has lasted so long and had such close attention paid to it. It has been supported by members of all parties. The hon.

Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is far from alone in his view, although it may have sounded that way this evening. He knows that the Cardiff city council Labour party and county council Labour party overwhelmingly support this development. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West gets things wrong every time on this issue.

Mr. Morgan: On what evidence does the hon. Gentleman say that the Cardiff city council Labour party supports the scheme?

Mr. Grist: It does.

Mr. Morgan: Give us the odd fact.

Mr. Grist: As Labour party members dominate the city council——

Mr. Morgan: Where is the evidence?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows his party well. If the local Labour party opposed the Bill, he would say so.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is a sort of Public Accounts Committee stand-in on this issue. I cannot understand that, but I believe that if he were still the Member for Cardiff, North, as he was between 1966 and 1970, he, too, would support this development.

Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman's assumption is incorrect. I had the privilege of serving Cardiff, North when I fought an equally grandiose nonsensical city centre scheme. Fortunately, it was heavily modified, and it led to sensible evolution of Cardiff's development. My approach and attitude to these proposals is very much the same.
The hon. Gentleman called me a sort of mini-PAC, and he was right. Unlike Ministers, we have not had statements. I received a letter signed by the Under-Secretary of State but obviously written by the hon. Gentleman. I hope to read it out later. The letter gave us some insight at least into public expenditure, but we have many questions to ask about it. I was astonished at the facile speech by the Under-Secretary. It did not develop those issues.

Mr. Grist: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was beginning to get into his stride. He knows that the public money that has gone to his constituency shows a smaller private return than will go into the Cardiff scheme. This is one of the best returns on public money available in any development in south Wales. In all his criticisms of this investment, the hon. Gentleman should remember that fact.

Mr. Rogers: I accept the hon. Gentleman's faith in his arguments because he was the Minister responsible for working out the public investment figures. As he is obviously an expert, having lived with the problem as a constituency Member and as the responsible Minister, will he tell us what return is expected from the £435 million which will be invested?

Mr. Grist: I should happily go over it with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. The total is £335 million, which shows how far out the hon. Gentleman was with his figures. Often, we accept low returns to rebuild town centres, to encourage housing development or a shopping centre or to clear a tip site. Such development may have a low return, but it is necessary to build up an area and to make it more attractive and available to new industry.
The barrage is commercial investment by the country in the capital city of Wales. I cannot stress that too strongly. I should have thought that hon. Members would want to see a successful capital city. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was quite right to say that the Ravenseft plan crashed when the pound was devalued because the then right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth had run into a bit of trouble. They had to pay £3 million in compensation——

Mr. Morgan: It was £4 million.

Mr. Grist: It was £4 million, was it? That was when Councillor Ferguson-Jones used the money to start St. David's hall. Ultimately, more money had to be found, and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) topped it up. We ended up with a magnificent concert hall, which reflected well on south Wales as well as on the immediate area around Cardiff. We can all be delighted that, at last, we have a world-class concert hall. I am sure that the hon. Member for Pontypridd occasionally attends concerts and other events in that hall. It is good for his constituency and for the immediate environs of Cardiff. The same will apply to the bay development.
I have no hesitation in supporting this highly imaginative, worthwhile and economic transformation of the city that I have the pleasure and pride of representing.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), with his new-found freedom on the Back Benches to speak for himself. I happily follow him down the history of the Cardiff centre development, which was nothing to do with the Government of the day but resulted from the economics and fundamentals of the scheme. The Cardiff central scheme was fundamentally flawed because it was a grandiose scheme. Huge assumptions were made that depended on enormous expenditure on a roadway, for which a huge part of Cardiff would have had to be knocked down. It would have meant destroying one aspect of the city's retailing sector. It was rejected not only because of the economics but because of the growing feelings of the people of Cardiff.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend and I were on the same side of that argument. That scheme involved the wholesale destruction of retailing, homes and communities, in direct contrast with the barrage scheme, which retains and benefits the existing communities as well as building new ones.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend tempts me to make a comparison. I suspect that I shall be able to show certain similarities in philosophy for that grandiose scheme and for the grandiose scheme of the Cardiff bay barrage development.
Since our last debate, I have taken the opportunity to revisit Cardiff bay. I express my gratitude to the chairman of the development corporation for his kindness and patience in explaining the nature and character of the vision of the development corporation and of some people in Cardiff. I fear that when he has heard my remarks he might feel that I have not drawn the conclusions that he would have wished from my visit, but, nevertheless, I understand the infectious enthusiasm that grows when a

grand, visionary scheme is presented. It is natural and instinctive to think that big is best. The same spirit was behind the original Cardiff central area proposals. I can remember the planners, like the chairman of the development corporation, saying how it was bound to be a winner and asking how anyone could dare suggest that such a grand visionary scheme could have flaws or was not the way for the city to evolve.
The same infectious enthusiasm has been expressed for the grand design of the barrage. I do not denigrate that. I understand and appreciate it, but we must not suspend our faculties. I did not do so when I was the Member for Cardiff, North and was placed under such pressure. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) will know that I was placed under pressure to be persuaded of the grand vision. I did not buy it then and I do not buy it for the Cardiff bay development. We should not suspend our critical judgment on the public expenditure consequences.

Mr. Michael: I appreciate the serious point that my hon. Friend is making. One should not be taken in by grandiose plans. Does he agree, however, that the development scheme for the centre of Cardiff which was carried through to fruition after the collapse to which he referred was imaginative, important and positive in terms of the development of Cardiff? Will he accept that we must compare the critical examination that we brought to bear on that scheme, when I was chairman of the planning committee, with the way in which many of us have approached this scheme—not uncritically, but critically and positively?

Mr. Rowlands: I am convinced that my hon. Friend is right that the scheme that evolved as a result of our turning our backs on the Ravenseft and Hook road schemes was sensible, imaginative and made Cardiff city centre such a pleasure to shop in, walk around and to listen to music in. Interestingly, what was decided evolved from existing development rather than from a large scheme being imposed.
Following my visit to Cardiff bay, I am offering my untutored impressions of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said how much sensible development has been going on, and no doubt will go on, in this derelict area, with or without the barrage. The most striking impression of my visit to the site was the enormous amount of development that is happening irrespective of whether the barrage is to be developed. The Pengam site has been developed and there is housing development. I was told by the chairman and others that the developers were not selling the existing scheme on the promise of this Bill and that the development would proceed irrespective of the barrage. What will the barrage add to that?

Mr. Grist: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was told just that. Naturally, anyone trying to sell the area and the development would stress that aspect. But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that everyone believes that the barrage will come and has taken that into consideration in investing in the area?

Mr. Rowlands: That is an interesting point. In that case, some people may be disappointed. They should not be making assumptions about what the House will decide. Remarks to the effect that we have spent too long debating


these issues show impatience with democracy, but patience is a vital quality of parliamentary democracy. If investors have made investments on that basis, they may well be disappointed. Who knows? As far as I know, however, the development corporation has not said, "Come and invest here because there will be a barrage." That is crucial. Even without the barrage, there has rightly been a large amount of exciting development.

Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) has grounds for his optimism that the Bill will be delivered eventually? After all, huge sums have been spent on promoting it-on inviting hon. Members to functions and asking them to come to Cardiff at public expense to see what is what. If the promoters do not get the Bill, they will have egg on their face. My hon. Friend should take account of the optimism of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, who is an ex-Minister once responsible for the Bill. Clearly, he knows something that we do not.

Mr. Rowlands: Who knows? We are crystal ball gazing. My hon. Friend has made a valid point, but I reiterate that a great deal of development has been going on and will continue to go on whether the barrage is built or not.
What is the extra ingredient that the barrage will bring? I can only give my own impression. It will accelerate interest and development in the area. It will generate hype around the sale of the land in the area for high-class commercial and residential development. A curious feature of the present scheme and of all the 1980s property boom schemes—including the development of London docklands—is that they require a huge dose of inflation. They depend on an inflationary boost being given to land prices, rents and commercial developments. It is most odd—indeed, it is nonsense—that the Government should preach that inflation is the greatest evil in the land while in Cardiff bay and London docklands huge inflationary pressure is placed on property prices and land values. I heard with bated breath how office costs in Mount Stuart square had risen from £2 to £12 per sq. ft.—as if that was a marvellous achievement. I suppose that some may regard increased land values and the rest of it as an achievement. But in Merthyr, wage freezes and cuts in manufacturing costs are what is preached, whereas down in Cardiff bay developers and companies are expected to pay another £10 per sq. ft. for the good of the Cardiff development scheme.
The 1980s were characterised by the nonsensical proposition that what is required is a property-led boom involving a degree of inflation way above retail price inflation. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central shakes his head. I do not believe that, with a 1 or 2 per cent. inflation rate, any of the projects discussed in the report would survive for one minute. Behind almost every one of the schemes has been the assumption that—especially if one pours in large sums of public money—land prices, rents and the value of commercial developments will be lifted and that banks will therefore be attracted to the area to help people to borrow against assets inflated by that public investment. That is a curious feature of the 1980s and, thank God, I think that it is coming to an end. The rest of us, and the rest of the economy, have paid the price. For those of us in Merthyr and elsewhere there has been a trickle-down effect of property booms—whether in

Cardiff, in London docklands or in the south-east: jobs have been lost, manufacturing opportunities destroyed and investment cut and we have been charged punitive interest rates. That has been the effect of an overcharged property boom. The Cardiff barrage proposal is a late—I think, too late—example of that.

Mr. Grist: Surely the hon. Gentleman must accept that rising rents are a reflection of increased prosperity. After all, people have to be prepared to pay them. A firm does not pay increased rents just for the fun of it. It pays them because it recognises that there is enough business in an area to make being there worth its while. Rents are higher in Oxford street than in the outer Orkneys because there are more sales to be had. That is obvious.

Mr. Rowlands: Did not the Government conclude, after their experience of running such a boom in 1986–87, that it was a complete economic disaster? The hon. Gentleman has described exactly what went on in the south-east and other parts of so-called prosperous Britain. People were paying £200,000 for houses worth £100,000. They were taking out 100 per cent. mortgages. That is the very market that Ministers have been trying to crush since the 1987 election. The notion is that we must have a property-led boom with large inflation for the Cardiff bay and docklands development schemes to survive and flourish. The rest of the nation has paid the price for such economic nonsense and I do not see why we should endorse it by supporting the Bill.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend has made an important point. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) does not realise that the people who suffer are those who pay and that the only people who reap the benefit of high rents are the landlords—the corporation, Associated British Ports and all the private interests. I see that the Minister is scoffing. Perhaps he can tell us who else benefits from high rents.

Mr. Rowlands: My hon. Friend makes a powerful and valid point.
Let me take the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central on further. He argued that there was a market which made it worth people's while to pay £12 per sq ft in Mount Stuart square when three or four years ago they were paying only £2. He said that that was a sign of increased prosperity. If that is so, why does not the private sector pay? Why should the public sector make a huge contribution to inflating land values, prices and rents in docklands? The Minister is an arch Thatcherite and, until the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central was sacked, I thought that he was, too. [HON. MEMBERS: "A Heseltini."] Oh, a Heseltini. In any case, he seemed dryish in character. But perhaps he is not. If the Cardiff bay barrage scheme is such a good scheme, and if we believe in the market, why should not it go ahead in the private sector? Why does not the development justify itself, rather than the promoters expecting the investment of large sums of public money to make it work? The basic test of such a scheme must be the degree to which it can sustain private sector investment.

Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman wants to play that card heavily, I presume that he will not want urban aid or urban investment which relies on the leverage of public money coming in to bring in private money after it.

Mr. Rowlands: I cannot attract this kind of private investment into Merthyr and Rhymney. The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central made an aside about the nature of our society, but land in Merthyr and Rhymney is not attractive enough to warrant such investment. It may have been attractive enough 150 years ago when we had the coal that provided the resources which created work for the Cardiff docklands in the first place. However, we cannot attract such investment in 1990.
Of course we need urban aid, but we do not need it to create inflation in our society. Urban grants or urban aid should not boost land prices or inflate house value; in my area because that would price the very people that we are trying to support out of the market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth claims that the development will benefit everyone in that part of the world. However, I notice that 25 per cent. of the residential development will be social or low-cost housing and I accept that that percentage is slightly more than tokenism. However, the rest of the development is for the market and we know what the market means in terms of marina-style residential developments.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has referred to that part of the development as being more than tokenism. The debate on the 25 per cent. of the development for social housing for rent, to which my hon. Friend referred, has been an important factor in the discussions involving people in the existing communities. Just as we want to see developments in Wales and just as my hon. Friend wants to see developments in Merthyr and in the other valley communities, we in south Cardiff—which has suffered like the valley communities—have a right to want jobs and the right environment for the future of our people. Are we on the same side of the argument in wanting to see public investment produce good returns?

Mr. Rowlands: We must ask how much that wily cost, how it should be financed and what kind of scheme we are talking about. I am sorry that I am now treading on the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, although he is inviting me to do that more and more. I have, to use a nautical term, been trying to steer a middle course. However, the barrage bay concept is not just to develop good, honest south Cardiff. The intention is to transport a London docklands-style yuppie development into Cardiff in an attempt to make the city greater than Bristol. We expect rather more for our city than what has been proposed around the marina-style development.
The development cannot be compared with low-cost housing in Merthyr. Having fought his battles, if my hon. Friend has managed to come out with only 25 per cent. of the development for social housing for rent in comparison to the total amount of public expenditure investment, he has not won.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has been comparing the development with London docklands. The big difference in Cardiff has been the co-operation involving the development corporation in Wales in comparison to what has happened in London and elsewhere. Local councillors like Peter Perkins, the local council member in Grangetown, who is the deputy leader of the county council, and other local authority members have been supporting the scheme after examining it critically to

discover what it will do to present communities as well as to the future of Cardiff. Labour local authority members and others have given the scheme a critical and careful appraisal and that has led them to support it.

Mr. Rowlands: I bow to my hon. Friend's knowledge of the way in which the local politics of the scheme have been unfolding. I have no right to enter that argument. However, those of us who represent Welsh constituencies have a right to claim that developments of this kind have wider implications. Inevitably, we are drawn into arguments about priorities.
The essential character of the scheme and particularly that character of the scheme that will be "barrage dependent", to borrow a phrase from a Welsh Office letter, will not necessarily be for the average working folk—and I put it no higher than that. I do not believe that the amount of public expenditure is justified.

Mr. Flynn: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are already huge areas of housing around the bay area including Channel view, Ferry road, Avondale crescent and the Hamadryad? There is already a huge amount of housing in place and that is far from being yuppie housing. All that housing will benefit enormously from the improvements that the barrage development can bring.

Mr. Rowlands: There has been a great deal of development around the bay without the barrage.
I want now to consider the Bill's public expenditure consequences. The Minister came to the Dispatch Box and rattled through his speech. However, we expected him to consider the public expenditure consequences. Indeed, he wrote me a four or five page letter setting out those consequences following our last debate on the matter.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman expected me to consider the public expenditure consequences today. On 19 December 1989 and 17 October 1990 the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist), dealt with the matter. I sent the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) a nine-page letter on the subject on 13 December, but he did not reply. I assume that he was happy with it.

Mr. Rowlands: I was waiting for the opportunity to cross-examine the Minister when he presented the figures publicly. The Minister took the trouble to write to me because he thought that it would be helpful to have a detailed explanation and clarification following our earlier exchanges.

Mr. Rogers: Surely my hon. Friend should point out to the Minister that the locus of the Welsh Office in the argument is the public expenditure aspect. It is not the Minister's function to advocate a particular scheme, because this is a private Bill. The Minister's and the Government's input into this kind of legislation and discussion should involve the implications for public expenditure.

Mr. Rowlands: That is so. The Minister should have presented the public expenditure implications of the Bill that he has supported in this House.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted a debate on the Bill's principles. The


letter that I sent him on 13 December contains nothing new from that which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central had advocated previously.

Mr. Rowlands: He felt it necessary to place the expenditure implications on record. I would have been happy to curtail my speech if the Minister had set the matter out clearly.
Let us look at what was contained in the letter of 13 December. The Minister confirms that the cost related to the Bill started out at about £84 million. He later confirms that figures have risen substantially. The key part related to the proportions of public and private expenditure. He said in the letter that of the £547 million of barrage-dependent and public expenditure, £335 million was estimated to be public expenditure. That is more than three fifths of the total cost of the scheme.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rowlands: Not at the moment.

Mr. Michael: I thought that my hon. Friend might not give way.

Mr. Rowlands: I shall present the case and then readily give way to my hon. Friend.
As I have said, £335 million of the £547 million for the barrage and associated works which are described in the letter and appendices is assumed to be public expenditure. The letter states:
The assumption in the January 1990 Update, which we would certainly support, is that there will be a greater degree of co-operation between the private sector and the Corporation".
As a result, the Minister says that public expenditure will be £335 million. Will he assure the House that that proportion is correct, and that in six months we will not find a higher level of public expenditure? A huge number of assumptions are made about the proportions of public and private expenditure. The assumption of £335 million is based upon an increased contribution from the private sector. Will the Minister assure the House that that is the true ratio of public and private investment in the scheme?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a scheme of this size and duration, no Minister could give absolute assurances. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the figures of £547 million and £335 million do not take into account the consultants' estimates. We are talking about total private investment of more than £1,500 million, and that includes the cost of all the other developments that will take place. The Bill mentions £335 million of public expenditure which will generate about £7 of private investment for every £1 of public expenditure.

Mr. Rowlands: We are talking about what the Minister describes in his letter, which states:
In summary, therefore, the most important and up to date figures at a comparable price base …
Cost of constructing the barrage: £125·55 million
Total cost of barrage strategy: £547·29 million
Total estimated public sector cost: £335 million".
That is what we are debating, and it is the basis on which the Minister reveals the ratio of public-to-private expenditure. Is the £335 million as a proportion of the £547 million an assumption or an assurance?

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what I said. I cannot give any assurance because I do not know how inflation and changes in the scheme might affect the figures in future. Over time there could be changes. The £547 million covers the barrage, the infrastructure costs, improved access, including the link road, and environmental improvements in the scheme. It does not include any private expenditure on housing and commercial developments. The scheme could have £1·6 billion of private investment. That is £7 of private investment for every £1 of public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that.

Mr. Rowlands: I understand it too well, and the Minister is trying to move to a wider point. I am asking about his letter, which plainly states that barrage-dependent costs for maximum development potential are £547 million, of which £335 million will come from the public sector. The letter states that the assumption in the January 1990 update is that there will be more private sector involvement in this barrage-related development scheme. It states:
The assumption in the January 1990 Update, which we would certainly support, is that there will be a greater degree of co-operation between the private sector and the Corporation in bringing forward developments within the overall barrage strategy. This will result in greater private sector contribution towards investment in infrastructure and reclamation works … water features, Iandscaping and, possibly, car parking and light railway facilities. Clearly, therefore, this will have a beneficial effect on the public sector input and, as I have indicated during our exchanges"—
that is interesting because those last words betray the fact that the letter was written by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central, because the only exchanges I have ever had on this matter have been with the hon. Gentleman. The letter continues:
it is estimated that the public sector will meet £335 million (in mid-1989–90 prices) of the £547 million total cost".
I narrow my question and repeat it to the Minister. In the terms of his own letter, in which he states
the public sector will meet £335 million (in mid-1989–90 prices) of the £547 million total cost … with the balance … from private investment",
will he now give the House something more than an assumption? Will he give us that assurance? At least we now know that, according to the Government, three fifths of the total cost of the scheme at the moment is to be met by the public as opposed to the private sector.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rowlands: No, I shall not give way because I am asking the Minister whether he will give us the assurance that that is the proportion of public to private sector involvement, as he described it in his letter.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I shall give the hon. Gentleman this assurance. I am convinced that there are adequate safeguards to control public expenditure on the scheme.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: rose——

Mr. Michael: rose——

Mr. Rowlands: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).

Mr. Alan W. Williams: My interpretation of the Minister's evasiveness on this matter is that he cannot give an assurance. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that that £547 million will escalate and that the


costs involved could be £600 million or £700 million, most of which will come from the public purse? Given the recession that we are now in—and if we have another Conservative Government, we shall never get out of it—the £1,500 million that the Minister projected will never come and the amount involved will be more like £1,000 million. We shall then be left with a multiplier not of 7:1 but of 2:1, if that.

Mr. Rowlands: What my hon. Friend has just said is absolutely valid.

Mr. Michael: I am keen that we should all operate on the same figures. That is why I sought to intervene a moment ago. Although I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend's interesting conversation with the Minister, I want to ensure that we are all making the same assumptions——

Mr. Rowlands: I was referring to the Minister's letter.

Mr. Michael: Yes, I am referring to the Minister's letter also. My hon. Friend knows that I have been given a copy. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that the £547 million includes the cost of the primary distributor road—the PDR—and the costs of a substantial number of other schemes. I questioned that at an early stage, because it seemed that all sorts of things, including the PDR, should not be included as barrage-related costs. We in south Cardiff have been waiting for relief for communities, such as Grangetown and Butetown, and for the building of the PDR. It has nothing to do with the building of the barrage, but I understand that it has to be included for legal reasons. Does my hon. Friend accept that the figure relating to the construction of the barrage, which is what we should really be concerned about, is £125 million of the figure to which he referred?

Mr. Rowlands: Yes, of course I accept my hon. Friend's last point because that is the direct cost of the Bill. However, the Minister's letter stated that barrage-dependent expenditure to maximise the full potential is £547 million. I am quoting the Minister's figures—not mine or my hon. Friend's. The Minister has said that £335 million of that amount is public expenditure. I am simply seeking a modest assurance from the Minister that at least that proportion, which I think is horrific, will stand. I have not received that assurance and I hope that the Minister is satisfied with the control mechanisms for public expenditure.
I should like to remind the House——

Mr. Jimmy Hood: rose——

Mr. Rowlands: I know that my hon. Friend served on the Private Bill Committee, but I should like to develop my point a little and then I shall happily give way to him.
We are told in the same letter that there are control mechanisms in place in the Welsh Office to ensure that costs are well under control. Let us consider first the cost that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has mentioned—the cost of the Bill itself. It started at £84 million—that is on the face of the Bill. At the same 1988 prices, the cost then rose to £113 million. Now, at 1989–90 prices, the cost is £125 million. According to the letter, the outturn cost is £147 million. I doubt whether the control mechanisms on which we are supposed to depend are well illustrated by that increase in expenditure.

Mr. Hood: I chaired one sitting of the Committee

examining the Bill, when we interviewed three Treasury officials. We asked about control, but the officials could not give us assurances. We already had high inflation then, and now we also have a deep recession. I asked whether the £547 million could rise to £600 million or £800 million, and they could not answer. That may help the point that my hon. Friend is making.

Mr. Rowlands: That is helpful. For all the words in the Minister's letter, the reality is that the control mechanisms are not effective.
I have a suggestion to put to the Minister which I hope that, with his great Thatcherite tradition, he will accept. Why do we not cap the public expenditure that will result from the Bill? That should appeal to the hon. Gentleman, who goes around capping everybody else. We could put into the Bill rigid public expenditure-capped limits on every item of expenditure. We could follow the channel tunnel principle, which he supports, so that, instead of having a public expenditure element in the Bill, the £125 million could be raised in the private market, as funds for the channel tunnel were. The Channel Tunnel Act 1987 has a section that forbids the use of public funds in the building of that tunnel. I have no doubt that the Minister supported, in his fervent Thatcherite way, that fundamental principle. If he believes in control mechanisms and the rest, will he support amendments to the Bill to introduce such rigid caps, so that at least the proportion of public expenditure to the private expenditure does not get out of hand, as it is doing now? That constructive suggestion should fall on welcoming ears now that the hon. Gentleman has been elevated from the Back Benches to the Front Bench.

Mr. Rogers: Many of us have not had the privilege of seeing the Minister's letter. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether there is any assessment of returns on the expenditure? The Minister has, quite rightly, said that, given the proportion of private expenditure—I presume that every penny of that expenditure is costed in for a return out—the public money going in will have little return. Does the Minister mention any return, or does he expect the development corporation to repay public expenditure when it makes its huge profit?

Mr. Rowlands: There are rates of return on investment to be found in the various documents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that he did not think that the Butetown link should be included. Whether it should be or not, I have one point to make about it. The 1·5 miles of the Butetown link is to cost an estimated £95·5 million. I picked up the Welsh Office Government expenditure plan. In table 7.4 on roads and transport, figures are given for the new construction programme, the main trunk road programme and various other roads. Except for the Briton Ferry-Earlswood section, no other road has a cost per mile higher than the 1·5 miles of the Butetown link. My hon. Friend has done his constituents proud in achieving this fantastic commitment. I do not engage in the politics of envy when I suggest gently that 1·5 miles for £95·5 million is a cost that should raise an eyebrow or two. The equivalent of the Butetown link for developmental purposes in my constituency is a programme that comes within the trunk road programme. It is called the Pentrebach-Mountain Hare route, phase 2. I thought that


the cost of that programme was high, but I have learnt since how modest it was. It is clear that I shall have to increase my demands on Secretaries of State. The cost of the programme was a mere £4·4 million a mile.
We heard at long last great announcements from the Dispatch Box about the delayed Llanbradach scheme. Will the cost of that scheme be £60 million a mile? As I have said, the cost of the Bute link is £63 million a mile. It is said that it is part of a scheme, but it has cost a great deal of money. Even the Under-Secretary of State might raise an eyebrow if he were asked to think about £63 million a mile and the needs of Pembroke. There is other road expenditure that has to be taken into account. The cost per mile of the A55 has not reached £63 million. The Briton Ferry-Earlswood links with the M4 would not cost so much per mile.
Has there been a cost-benefit analysis of the one-and-a-half miles of the Butetown link? Has there been a 17 per cent. or 20 per cent. return? Bearing in mind the major links with the major arteries that we are rightly building in the Principality, it is extraordinary that the cost of a 1·5 mile link should be so enormous.
As I have said, I am not engaging in the politics of envy. It is only right, however, to cross-examine at considerable length when we come to the public expenditure implications of projects such as the Butetown link.
I am a great fan of the marvellous comedy "Only Fools and Horses". In the penultimate episode, Uncle Albert went missing. Rodney, the nephew, and Del Boy find Uncle Albert down Tobacco road, where he had been brought up. Tears were streaming down his eyes. That was his reaction when he saw the London dockland of today, the world from which he had come. He was understandably nostalgic, but it was a world that had to go. The nephew understood Uncle Albert's feelings. He understood the thoughts that were passing through his mind. As a member of the young generation, he was turning his back on the yuppie land of marinas and the dockland development that Uncle Albert had seen. The person who admired that development and considered it paradise was Del Boy. He stood before the development in amazement and, in effect, said, "This is Paradise. If only I could get my hands on one of the apartments and hang around for a couple of years, some Arabs would buy it from me at a greatly inflated price."
There are not too many schemes such as that which is to be seen in the dockland area of London, but I fear that the Cardiff bay barrage yuppie residential schemes are part of Del Boy development and Del Boy society. Such activity might have been a feature of society in the 1980s, but I do not believe that it will be part of the 1990s. That is why I shall vote against the further consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) that the Uncle Alberts and the other inhabitants of Tobacco road are very much in Grangetown and the docks area generally. They will not be thrown out.
Perhaps I should declare an interest as a relative of mine, the widow of my late brother, has recently bought a

house in Channel View road at a cost of rather less than £40,000. She has not moved into a new development. I am talking of council houses that were built in the 1930s. There is much older housing as well, which was built in the previous century. That is to be found in Ferry road. The housing in Avondale road was built in the late 1930s and early 1940s. Housing in the docks area, near the Hamadrayad, was built in the previous century. Some of the most recently built housing there is that which was provided to replace temporarily—in fact, most of the houses have become permanent—dwellings in the Madras street and Thomas street areas of Grangetown. Those could by no stretch of the imagination be described as yuppie areas; the reverse, indeed, is the case. It is the established community, not the yuppies, that will benefit hugely from improvement of the environment.
The great curse of the coast of south Wales was described by Tennyson in the words
Break, break, break.
On thy cold gray stones, O Sea!".
He was describing the haven under the hill—the haven was Penarth—and the tall ships that went by. Tennyson stayed in the Hanbury arms, which is in my constituency, in the last century. The problem then was the same as the problem now. This is not a beautiful area. For 18 hours a day the view is not of a reflecting sea or of beautiful waves; it is of a mudscape. Sadly, since Tennyson's time even the mudscape has deteriorated greatly. The mud is now heavily polluted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) is absolutely right when he refers to the disgraceful way in which we have fouled our rivers over the past 150 years. Restoring those rivers, preferably to the state that they were in 200 years ago, must be a major cause. It is conceivable. I hope that I am not being too autobiographical when I say that, as children, we used to swim in the Taff, near the Penarth road bridge. I remember vividly the feeder, which was exposed. There are now buildings there. During the war, boys would dive for coins. The river was in a terrible state at that time, but it is now becoming a fish habitat once more.
There has been reference—how serious, I am not sure—to fish passes. This issue has arisen only very recently. I understand that Mr. Creswell, the National Rivers Authority's spokesman on these matters, gave evidence about fish passes. There was no challenge at the time, but another Bill will provide an opportunity for that. That Bill, which will involve my constituency, casts its shadow before it.
I understand that in the Usk, which has been rich in fish life for at least 10,000 years—there may be objection to that period—is still rich in fish life. The number of fish caught in the estuary of the Usk, which is in my constituency, is eight times as great as the number caught in the 100-mile stretch that runs through the countryside. There is a very strong vested interest. The most remarkable thing about the fish is that they have been so robust over the years. Some of them have managed to swim through the fouled waters of the lower Usk, whereas, for many years, they have not succeeded in the Taff or in the Ely. It is gratifying to see such an improvement in water quality.
A great deal has emerged from this debate. It has been much better tempered than many other debates. The question of water quality is, of course, paramount. I am told that the worst that we can expect is water quality such as is to be found in Roath park lake and Bute east dock,


which supports fish life and, at present, cormorant life. Although there is pollution there, it is not such that people find it disagreeable. At present, the great problem about the Cardiff bay area arises from mud held in suspension, which gives the water an ugly brown colour. There may be other reasons as well, but the principal one is mud in suspension.
While on a boat trip with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), I was fascinated to notice how nature had defied the experts. In the area, at least 20 cormorants have managed to survive, even though the water is not transparent at all. According to the experts, those birds should not be able to survive. Cormorants need to be able to see through water in order to fish. But nature tends—as the cormorants and other birds are—to be far more robust and better at looking after itself than many people suggest. There are many other examples throughout south Wales of birds finding other habitats.
There has been no mention of the measures which will be taken under the Bill to establish an alternative habitat. There is an exciting proposal in the area of Wentloog, some of which is close to my constituency. Such measures have been taken elsewhere. That development should be well worth while. Great colonies of birds have moved from Collister Pill, an area at Magor in the Monmouth constituency. Those areas were drained for agricultural reasons and the habitat of tens of thousands of birds was destroyed. The birds moved to a wholly artificial, man-made habitat at the Uskmouth power station. They settled there and feed on the mudflats. They breed on the Uskmouth power station land. They have adapted successfully.
There is much pessimism about the Bill. So many people fail to see that it is a magnificaent concept. We should feel excited about the scale of it and what it will do. It will make an enormous difference. Throughout the world—for example, in Australia and in Baltimore, in America—hugely successful schemes have been undertaken to allow people to enjoy living near areas of reflective water. The human species likes to live in such pleasant surroundings.

Mr. Rogers: Does my hon. Friend argue that we should spend hundreds of millions of pounds of public money to create reflective water?

Mr. Flynn: I am saying that the Bill has many advantages. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) suggested that all the money was intended to create jobs; he calculated the cost of each job created. But the Bill has so many advantages that one cannnot pin down the value of the Bill to one.
There has been a generous spirit in the debate tonight. It is significant that no one accused anyone of having a beggar-my-neighbour policy, but certain hon. Members adopted a defensive attitude. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, we should all realise that prosperity as well as dereliction is contagious. We live in a single economy in south Wales. What is good for Cardiff will be good for Newport and the valleys. We welcome the £800 million investment in the valleys even though we may have been doubtful about some of it and the amount. We should like to see a great deal more investment spread to the valleys. They will benefit from the Bill.
Furthermore, Cardiff is our capital city. I have a special pride in it, in spite of being wickedly provoked on Saturday night when I attended the dinner of the Welsh Baseball Union. Welsh baseball is a splendid sport played only in the favoured areas of Cardiff, Newport and Liverpool. Welsh baseball is different from any other type of baseball. I was introduced to the assembled guests as, not the Member for Newport, West but the Member for Cardiff, Far East. In spite of that, I feel a loyalty to the Bill.
I see the proposed barrage as a most exciting development in south Wales. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and others have rightly argued about the Bill and questioned it. The important matters raised, especially that of ground water and the history of the area, should be examined in great detail. If it is discovered that the worst fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West will be realised—we all hope that they will not be—the Bill and the entire project will be friendless in the House. I hope that that will not be the case.

Mr. Morgan: rose——

Mr. Flynn: I shall take the hint.
I think that the right hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who intervened on the subject of fish passes, was being unduly pessimistic. Salmon are strong, resilient fish. They have survived. They go through waterfalls and all kinds of pollution. The great problem is that salmon need water coming down the rivers. They need sufficient rainfall. Global warming and our warm summers will cause them more problems than getting through fish passes, which are established and work well.
We look forward to the day when the many objectors, both serious and less so, are answered and we can stroll together along the magnificent banks of Cardiff bay.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcomed the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) when he said what a good-natured debate we have had this evening, throughout the entire three hours and especially on the Opposition side of the House, although there was one exception, when the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Grist) spoke. He rather surprised us all. He tried to exhibit mind-reading skills that we did not know he had. He was not trying to work out whether hon. Members such as myself disagreed with him, but our motives for doing so. I do not think that the House would function if we started to smear any hon. Member who disagreed with us by saying that they had heard voices. That was completely unnecessary. We all do our work in our own way and look after our constituents' interests. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central has a better way of looking after his constituents' interests than I have, no doubt the results will show after the next election. That is when the matter will be put to the test.
I can tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central how he would be right to say that I had heard voices and that that is why I am opposing the Bill. However, I did not hear voices in the sense that he meant. It was simply that I walked around my constituency in Pontcanna and met a pensioner, who told me that he had lived there all his life, he knew all the pensioners, and he knew that they did not want the barrage. However, that was not sufficient basis for deciding to oppose this measure.
The next stage in my decision to oppose the barrage came when I was called to meet Dr. Noake, who was paid for by Cardiff Bay development corporation, as a second-opinion consulting geologist engineer. He was educated and lives in south Wales, and is an experienced consulting geologist. I was asked to meet him because he had been working on the barrage proposals and their effect upon the drainage of the low-lying part of Cardiff west, Cardiff central and Cardiff south. He told me that in his opinion—he was paid for by the development company, but jointly chosen by it and the objectors, as it was thought to be the fairest way to operate—having studied the scheme, the geological contours and the way in which the water table operated, he thought that the low-lying areas of Cardiff would fail to drain in certain circumstances if the barrage were built and that that would have the obvious consequence of a rising water table.
A locally based, professional engineering geologist told me that there could be problems for draining the low-lying parts of my constituency and others, so again that made me take notice.
I then set to and I read the entire evidence submitted to the House of Lords and decided that as the Member of Parliament for Cardiff, West it was my responsibility to oppose the barrage because more low-lying residential areas are in my constituency than in that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central seems to object to this process. He seems to think that because I did not oppose the barrage on the first day I heard about it, I sacrificed my right to oppose it at any subsequent stage. That is obvious nonsense. One has to accumulate the necessary facts to form an opinion in the best way that one can as a Member of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman also seems to think that because I was the industrial development officer for the county of South Glamorgan I must somehow have been aware of the barrage proposal and must have favoured it before I came to this House. He forgets that I ceased to be the industrial development officer for the county in 1980, more than six years before the Secretary of State for Wales thought up this proposal. So any connection between my previous employment and my right to oppose the barrage on behalf of my constituents is a complete mystery to me. I will have to write to him when this stage is over to find out what he meant by hearing voices and whether he considers that to be a proper parliamentary remark for one Cardiff Member to make about another.
Apart from that, the debate has been good natured on all sides and there has been a great deal of understanding. The fact that we may differ and that we have formed our views in different ways does not affect our ability to put them on record for the purpose of trying to persuade our colleagues to vote for or against the barrage.
We are being asked to consider the Bill as amended by the Select Committee, which did its work thoroughly and diligently. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) signed a minority report. There were 72 petitioners overall—one of the many parliamentary records set by the Bill. Many of the petitioners were not well off. They were not corporations and they could not call for expenses and first-class railway tickets to London,

as we can and as companies can. Had they had to come to Parliament, they would have been put to considerable expense and might have prejudiced their jobs by taking time off. The Select Committee wisely accepted a request to hold sessions in Cardiff to let those petitioners appear, and it met for an entire week in South Glamorgan county hall. Something similar has happened only once before. We are grateful to the Select Committee for doing that and enabling many of my constituents to appear at minimum private expense.
What the Select Committee did was curious and highly innovative, and requires serious consideration. It approved the Bill but not the barrage. It said in effect, "We are not in a position to give the barrage the go-ahead. We accept largely the ground water case made by the professional engineering witnesses who appeard on behalf of the objectors." Those witnesses were Dr. John Miles, Professor Ken Rushton and Brian Connorton from Thames Water. By and large the Select Committee accepted the bulk of their objections to the work that has been done so far. In effect, the Select Committee said, "We are not willing to pass the barrage. We want to pass the buck on the final decision to the Secretary of State for Wales after more ground water studies have been carried out." Studies should be carried out over a full four seasons because measurements are being made of rainfall and its effects on the ground water table to try to get an impression of the process going on under the soil in Cardiff.
Most of the objectors in my constituency think that if the Committee was not ready to pass the barrage, it should not have approved the Bill. They wonder what the Committee meant by approving the Bill when it was not ready to approve the major works which the Bill would empower the corporation to do. I understand that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale signed the minority report; I am paraphrasing his views but he said that if the Committee was not ready to approve the barrage it should not send the Bill back to Parliament. My hon. Friend wanted the ground water studies to be completed so that the Bill would come back to Parliament to give the scheme the go-ahead only provided that the additional information warranted it.

Mr. Michael: Obviously my hon. Friend develops the chronology in accordance with his own views and his reading of the evidence. Does he accept that the decision of the majority of the Select Committee and the interpretation placed on it by experts and engineers, including the independent experts on whom I have depended, are reassuring and that the additional work which was to take place anyway was, as it were, the belt and braces in addition to the considerable safeguards in relation to ground water?

Mr. Morgan: If my hon. Friend thinks that that version of events is better than mine, perhaps I should read out Hydrotechnica's version, contained in the interim report that the company sprang on everyone in Cardiff—everyone of whom I am aware, at any rate—last Thursday. On page 2, we read:
At the Commons Committee stage of the Bill, Proofs of Evidence were presented by Professor K. Rushton, Dr. J. Miles and Mr. B. Connorton, on behalf of the Petitioners, which were critical of the modelling work and which cast doubts on its reliability.
As a consequence of this, Hydrotechnica was instructed by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation in March 1990 to


examine the modelling work performed by WEL, and the Proofs of Evidence, and to give an opinion. Hydrotechnica reported one week later accepting the competence of the Petitioners' advisers to comment on the work, and agreeing in large measure with the comments made. Hydrotechnica did however state '… we believe from our concept of the system that these conclusions'"—
those of Wallace Evans—
 "'are essentially correct …'
It became clear that the deficiencies identified in the modelling work needed to be addressed, and such action was undertaken by Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. The Bill passed the Committee stage, with the condition that Hydrotechnica should carry out further modelling over a 12 month period ending on 31 July 1991.
I do not want to engage in a barren argument about whether my version is superior to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. I rest on the Hydrotechnica version.

Mr. Michael: rose——

Mr. Morgan: No, I will not give way; I think that three versions of the same event are quite enough, with only 20 minutes to go before the witching hour.

Mr. Rogers: Will my hon. Friend give way on this specific point?

Mr. Morgan: Yes, given my hon. Friend's professional knowledge of geology.

Mr. Rogers: This has nothing to do with my expertise as a geologist. I have long given up that profession; my point relates purely to common sense.
It appears that the Bill will have a minimal effect on houses in low-lying areas as a result of ground water. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be much better to get rid of all such possibilities by allowing the models to cover at least four seasons? Is it not foolish to proceed with the Bill in its present form, given the present assumptions about ground water?

Mr. Morgan: Let me make it clear that the proposal is to compensate for the damage being done by remedial work. It is anticipated that at least 1,000 houses may be affected by the waterlogging of basements, for instance, and my constituents do not understand why they should put up with such botheration.
There is a wider and more important point at issue, however. We are now being asked to accept the Bill without the barrage, but to take the barrage on trust when the additional ground water studies have been completed on 31 July. That is a unique parliamentary device: it is rather like General Colin Powell's words to the United States press corps the other day, when they were looking at the laser print. He said. "Trust me; I have had to change the photographs a bit to stop the Iraqis from understanding where we get our information from."
How much trust can my constituents—who constitute a large proportion of the objectors—put in the House and the Secretary of State for Wales, given that, since 7 February, we have had a document signed by the Government Chief Whip telling all Ministers to be present tonight to vote the Bill through in the Lobby—and also to procure the presence of all parliamentary private secretaries? They are the unpaid members of the payroll voters who hope for promotion next year. The Welsh Office will, apparently, be acting quasi-judicially at the end

of a planning inquiry, but we know that the Government have been whipping the Bill through on the quiet all the time.

Mr. Hood: As a Member of the Select Committee and as the individual who wrote the minority report, may I cast some light on my hon. Friend's comments about the Committee's views? The Committee unanimously accepted the evidence of Rushton and Miles. We would not have supported the Bill without the amendment backed by the majority which gave the final decision to the Secretary of State. Judging from the advice that we have been given by the Clerk, I do not believe that the Bill will proceed any further, whether or not the House supports it. There was gerrymandering. The Bill was not accepted because of the dangers. That was dishonest. Therefore, I cannot support it. I do not criticise the three other members of the Select Committee. They came to an honourable decision, but the advice we received and the evidence we heard led me to believe that the Bill would not be supported by the Secretary of State for Wales. We were advised that the Bill was flawed. That was the reason for the amendment. I hope that that will help my hon. Friend to develop his point.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central will say that he heard voices, too. If he did, they were the right ones. His words will be warmly welcomed by a large number of my constituents whose houses are low lying and near to the river.
Additional ground water studies began after the Select Committee disgorged the Bill on 14 May. The Cardiff Bay development corporation said that as most of the work had already been started it would be completed by March. Luckily, the Select Committee was able to put that straight. The corporation was firmly put in its place by the Committee. It was told that the work would begin on 1 August 1990 and would end on 31 July 1991. Over a full 12 month period that allows readings to be taken from the boreholes of the rise and fall of the tide, heavy rainfall and drought. A large number of boreholes have been drilled in the three constituencies affected; furthermore, a few have been drilled in the Cardiff, North constituency.
Hydrotechnica's interim report was published last Thursday. The Committee appointed Dr. John Miles to give a second opinion and to act on the petitioner's behalf. It was felt that that would reassure them that the Committee had done its work thoroughly and that it would not allow the petitioners to be railroaded by Hydrotechnica or any other consultants. Consultants are pulled both ways—in one way by their professional reputations, which they want to protect, and in the other way by the fees that they receive from their clients and by their customer-client relationship.
In addition to the protection afforded by Hydrotechnica's good name as professional experts in hydrogeology and computerised modelling of ground water, Dr. John Miles was called in to give a second opinion. When he was asked whether he had read the interim report and had been given a chance to comment upon it, he said that he had not—that he had not been told that it was to be published and that therefore he had been given no chance to comment upon it. The report was therefore published for public relations purposes just


before the debate by Cardiff Bay development corporation. It told Hydrotechnica that it needed a report before this debate but Hydrotechnica was told not to show it to Dr. Miles in case he said that he wanted certain alterations to be made to it, or that he disagreed with it. The interim report was not shown to that second opinion, Dr. Miles, who had been appointed by the Select Committee to look after the interests of the ground water objectors.
That is no way to deal with the Select Committee's views on the ground water objections to the Bill. That is a poor advertisement for the trust that my constituents, who have ground water objections to the Bill, can place in the way that the Cardiff Bay development corporation works. It does not seem to appreciate that the Select Committee wanted evidence from other geologists and engineers as well as its own evidence. The corporation should read a few texts on philosophical humility. It should have realised that when the Select Committee told it that it wanted the corporation to appoint consultants and to refer everything that its consultants proposed to a second opinion, it ought to have done so and then made use of that second opinion instead of ignoring it. It should not have tried to go behind his back just because a big debate was to take place in the House of Commons. It is similar to what happened when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He cut base rates by 0·5 per cent. on the last day of the Labour party conference and the last working day before the Conservative party conference. The right hon. Gentleman thought that that was a clever move, but it has rebounded because markets have lost faith.
I am concerned that the same process will occur again. My constituents who object to the Bill may ask, "What trust can we put in this elaborate structure that the Select Committee created to defend our interests? One need not worry about Hydrotechnica and the Cardiff Bay development corporation railroading you, because there is Dr. John Miles." The development corporation did not consult Dr. John Miles when it wanted to bring out an interim report.
Dr. John Miles, Professor Rushton and those of my constituents who object to the Bill will probably tomorrow—unless the cold weather holds it up—sink boreholes in certain parts of Cardiff to act as a double check. Professor Rushton is one of the world's great experts on computerised modelling of ground water behaviour. Boring holes is the only comeback they have against the development corporation's underhand behaviour. I do not criticise Hydrotechnica—the firm has an immense reputation—but all consultants are pulled by the attraction of fees while obviously having to consider their professional reputation.
Economic arguments have been made for the barrage. We heard a great deal about the promises of huge numbers of jobs in the Cardiff area. We even heard that the development may in some way skew up the pattern of development in south Wales because too many jobs may accrue in Cardiff and not enough in other areas. We have heard that the development may make Cardiff bigger than Bristol, double its size and make it an important European capital city of the 21st century.
The Cardiff Bay development corporation's record on job creation is abysmal. The corporation existed in prototype form from about February four years ago, so it

is virtually the corporation's birthday. More than £100 million of public funds has been given to it and it has acquired many sites. During a period that included a considerable boom in industrial investment, by British standards, the development corporation has managed to contribute only a new Volvo garage to Cardiff's economic life.
That is a poor return for four years of effort. It is a taster of the incompetence and overweaning behaviour that will characterise the corporation's behaviour. It does not have to abide by the rules governing local authorities and because it has been a favoured child of the Government. Therefore, it is not able to bargain and to negotiate in the same way as people who live in the real world. It is neither in the private sector, because it is publicly funded, nor in the public sector, because it does not have democratic accountability. One tends to get the worst of both worlds.
Four years of effort have given rise to one imported car garage—just the sort of thing that will put Britain back on the right track to economic growth. If any hon. Member knows of a development to which the development corporation has managed to give birth, I should be pleased to amend my statement. My understanding is that Bay Track Volvo in Cardiff bay is the only project that the development corporation has managed to get together in four years.
We have not heard the Government's solution to the problem of the highly nutrient-rich water of the bay. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that the water quality of the bay will be as good as in Roath park lake, which is surrounded by some of the most attractive housing in Cardiff, and in Bute dock. However, it is far more nutrient-rich than Roath park lake and is a far shallower environment than Roath dock, which has steep sides. Large mats of algae will form, as they did last summer and the summer before last in the shallow feeder lakes into Roath park, which had to be removed in lorries. When mats of algae are allowed to decay they give off an anaerobic stench, and that will be a characteristic of the bay. It is accepted by the bay's promoters and their water consultants that mats of algae will form in the summer, when people will expect to be able to toddle around and enjoy Cardiff bay at its best. During the fine weather, unfortunately, the eutrophication and the low oxygen levels——

Mr. Michael: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 17.

Division No. 68]
[at 10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amess, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Anderson, Donald
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Boswell, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Bowis, John


Atkins, Robert
Boyes, Roland


Atkinson, David
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Bellingham, Henry
Brazier, Julian






Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howells, Geraint


Burns. Simon
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Jackson, Robert


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Janman, Tim


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jessel, Toby


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cope, Rt Hon John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Couchman, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cox, Tom
Knapman, Roger


Crowther, Stan
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dalyell, Tarn
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lawrence, Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dixon, Don
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fallon, Michael
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Maclean, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Forth, Eric
Mans, Keith


Foster, Derek
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fraser, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Meale, Alan


Grist, Ian
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Michael, Alun


Hague, William
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moss, Malcolm


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hind, Kenneth
Norris, Steve


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James





Patnick, Irvine
Steen, Anthony


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Stern, Michael


Patten, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Portillo, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Summerson, Hugo


Powell, William (Corby)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Raffan, Keith
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Redwood, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thorne, Neil


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Trippier, David


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Trotter, Neville


Robertson, George
Twinn, Dr Ian


Roe, Mrs Marion
Vaz, Keith


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shelton, Sir William
Wareing, Robert N.


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wheeler, Sir John


Shersby, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wiggin, Jerry


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Timothy


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speed, Keith



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Squire, Robin
Mr. Gwilym Jones, and Mr. Paul Flynn.


Stanbrook, Ivor





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Rogers, Allan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Short, Clare


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Fearn, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Hood, Jimmy



Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Alan W. Williams and Mr. Rhodri Morgan.


Lewis, Terry



Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill to be further considered on Thursday 12 February.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Orders of the Day — Ministerial and Other Pensions and Salaries Bill

Considered in Committee.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Sir Paul. It is difficult for us to hear what is going on with all the noise.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): May I ask those hon. Members who are not staying for the Committee stage of the Bill to continue their conversations outside?

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 42, leave out from 'to' to `and' in line 43 and insert
'affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons'.
The amendment converts the all-important proposed statutory instrument in clause 6 from a negative resolution—that is, from an order which is not usually debated unless it is prayed against—to an affirmative resolution, which is debatable.
I thank the Leader of the House for including clause 6 in the Bill. With your permission, Sir Paul, I hope to speak to the structure of the clause and the nature of the order when dealing with the amendment and to turn briefly to some other aspect of this matter in the clause stand part debate. There have been negotiations or talks between the trustees of the House of Commons pension fund, but I stand in some representative capacity in my party and I wish to try to convey to the Leader of the House the strength of opinion on this matter across all parties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) may catch your eye on Third Reading, Sir Paul, to deal with that matter.
If I speak with some feeling it is because one of the first constituency cases with which I dealt when I became a Member of Parliament over 20 years ago concerned the family of a former hon. Member. He was well known and well liked. Alas, he died unexpectedly in his late forties or early fifties. In his last illness, he realised that he would live only two or three weeks beyond the 10-year limit. When he realised that, he was thankful that the House of Commons pension fund would look after his wife and two children. Alas, however, a visit to the Fees Office a little later revealed that, although the former Member had completed 10 years and so many weeks' service, he had not taken into account the fact that the time during which the House had been prorogued would be deducted from his service. That hon. Gentleman and his family failed to qualify.
Things have improved since then in the House of Commons pension fund, which looks after such cases, but those hon. Members who retired before 1964 find that, to some extent, that state of affairs still persists. We are all agreed that the benefits and the terms of the fund are not yet geared up to what hon. Members might expect if they had not been Members of this House and—more

importantly—to what their families, dependants and widows might have expected if the hon. Member had not been a Member.
Therefore, although the increased benefits that we expect in another order that the Leader of the House is to lay at some stage are not part of this Bill, some aspects of the legislation give cause for concern. My concern is with the nature of the order. Clearly, we are in an unusual position, which is partly the nature of Parliament, but it is also constitutional. As employees of the public, we pay a proportion of our income—whether fixed or variable—into the fund. In a sense, the House itself or the public—it is certainly not the Government—also pay a certain amount as the employer. That mechanism is well known and I need not go into it now, except to say that there is dispute about the amount.
My point about the statutory instrument that is proposed in the clause and which must have the approval of the Treasury before it is laid by the Leader of the House is that the provisions place the Treasury in a special position. I am not sure that I agree with that and we could have tabled an amendment starting, "After consultation with the Treasury", but never mind, those are the provisions. The Treasury, however, is the protector of the public. In the debate on 31 January, the Leader of the House properly reminded us that the taxpayer must be borne in mind, but the taxpayers—whether through VAT or income tax—are our employers. Who, therefore, is representative of our employers? Is it the Treasury? More importantly, is it the First Lord—or even the First Lady—of the Treasury? This matter does not concern only the Chancellor. We all know who the First Lord of the Treasury is.
Or is the representative of the public the body of Members of the House of Commons? I should think that there is at least as strong a case for saying that those who represent the public are the members of the House of Commons in generality as there is for saying that it is the single individual who is the First Lord of the Treasury and Her Majesty's—or His Majesty's; we are thinking ahead—Prime Minister of the day. Therefore, is not it anomalous that not only does the Treasury have to give its consent—that means either the Chancellor or the First Lord or Lady and there has been talk about which it was in the past—but it makes the decisions? As the Bill is drafted, the order, because it uses the royal prerogative, will inevitably come into force unless it is negatived.
Is not it inappropriate for this important matter to be more on the side of the royal prerogative, within the personal control of the First Lord of the Treasury, than in the control of the House? Constitutionally, some people might argue, as I would on another occasion, that it should be entirely in the control of the House, acting as a representative of both the employers and employees, but that might be pressing it a bit hard. I am not saying that it should be framed only in consultation with the Treasury. The Leader of the House has drafted it as an agreement, so that is how we have it. However, if that is not so, there is an equal and proper argument that the House should not lie back and wait for it, but should have to give its approval.
After all, the proportions of contribution, whatever they may be in the future, will be made under a contract of the House with itself—Government, Members and First Lord together. It is not just one sided. I think that the Leader of the House will agree that, as drafted, the Bill


leaves everything on the side of the Government and of the prerogative and gives nothing to the House. For that reason, an affirmative order would be consititutionally more acceptable and fairer in terms of contract, if nothing else. I know that this is a late stage in the long saga of this matter. I may be only putting down a marker for some future debate when perhaps none of us is here. However, it is one of substance, it is constitutional, it is to do with contract and, on any objective basis, it would stand up for approval.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: As one of the managing directors of the pension fund, I should perhaps say something. This is a matter which we considered, but we came to the conclusion that it was not right to have an affirmative resolution. The matter was discussed four years ago and, at the express wish of the House, the procedure was changed from the affirmative to the negative resolution. On Second Reading, it was felt that the change from primary to secondary legislation might give the House further opportunities to amend and debate the scheme. That was put to the Minister who undertook to consider the matter. He said:
I am happy to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that time will be made available for a debate on an amendable motion before any regulations amending the scheme are made under clause 2. This would allow, for example, the sort of debate that we had in July 1983 on the recommendations of the TSRB which led to the changes to the scheme that were made in the 1984 Act. The arrangements will be similar to the procedure for determining hon. Members' pay and allowances."—[Official Report, 13 May 1987; Vol. 116, c. 371.]
It was because that change was made at the request of the House four years ago that, when we most recently considered the matter, the managing trustees agreed, without dissent, that they would leave it as it stood. They felt that it would not be in the interests of Members to change the procedure.
I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), after putting down his marker, will agree to withdraw the amendment. I feel that it would not fit in with the considerable amount of work that has been done by the chairman of the trustees, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who, alas, cannot be with us this evening.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I shall refer to two arguments that were advanced by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) before I deal with the substance of the amendment. My first response relates to the case to which he referred of an ex-Member and the tragic circumstances that surrounded him. I agree that in times past the House did not treat its Members well in respect of pensions and other matters. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is why we have the Members' fund—so that widows and others can be looked after. He will have noted that in clause 7 we have changed the wording relating to the Members' fund to enable the trustees—it is their responsibility—fully to exercise their discretion. The wording was worked out by the trustees and myself and I think that it is welcome to the House.
It was because there are problems relating to those who were previously Members of this place that I announced during our debate on 31 January that we were increasing funding from public sources, from the Treasury, by

£100,000 up to the maximum to enable trustees to fulfil their responsibilities. I hope that that will help in dealing with those who were previously Members.
Secondly, I take up the excursion of the hon. Member for Newham, South into the siding of the balance of interests and who represents the public. There is a public interest in the form of those who are contributing the public sector element. Those are taxpayers. That is why the Treasury has an interest. Equally, we as Members make major contributions to the fund and we have an interest to ensure that our pensions are reasonable.
I would not agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South entirely and say that, because we represent the public as a whole, we can represent the public on this matter. There is a need to recognise that we have a vested interest. That is why we have the Top Salaries Review Body considering these matters and why, on the balance of contributions, I felt and the trustees agreed that the problem currently causing concern to Members should be referred to the TSRB.
I shall explain to the hon. Member for Newham, South why I think that things are better as they stand than they would be if his amendment were accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) put the case well. As I explained on Second Reading, although regulations under the 1987 Act are subject to the negative resolution procedure, we are permitted, in line with an undertaking of the Paymaster General in 1987, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, to set down regulations before the House in draft so that the House can make its views known and have them taken into account. I think that it was agreed in 1987 that in that way the rights of Members would be fully protected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, the trustees find that satisfactory. That, of course, is what we have done. There would be little point, therefore, in holding one debate on an amendable motion on regulations and then a second under the affirmative resolution procedure.
I assure the hon. Member for Newham, South and the House generally that we have promised that these matters will be debated. I think that the arrangement proved itself when we tabled our motion on the draft regulations, which improved the scheme and which we debated on 31 January. Although the hon. Gentleman suggested that everything might be on the side of the Government, I believe that practice has proved that that is not so. I hope that it is clear from the discussions with the trustees leading to the Bill and the regulations that there is proper mutual negotiation. That is also clear, I believe, following the decisions that we took on 31 January. On that occasion, I accepted on behalf of the Government an argument that was advanced in relation to MEPs, and that will be included in the final regulations.
I reassure the House that any regulations that are made under the clause will be treated in the same way as we approached the regulations on 31 January. I believe, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate and I have said, will agree that this is a better way to proceed.
For the sake of completeness, I should refer to a technically deficient part of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is not only to ensure that the affirmative resolution procedure is used, but to eliminate the role of the House of Lords in the approval of the regulations. I am


not sure that the hon. Gentleman intended that effect. As I am sure he knows, some members of the other place are in the parliamentary scheme. It would be wrong to exclude them from the parliamentary process. However, that is a lesser point, as it could be put right. The main point is the one that both my hon. Friend and I have made—that, from the point of view of the House, the proposal in the Bill is a more satisfactory way to proceed.

Mr. Spearing: I should like to respond at once to the Leader of the House's closing point. It was, indeed, realised that the amendment would cut out the other place. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that some Members of the House of Lords are former Members of this House. But there are many who are not and I do not see why their employment, casual though it may be, should be regarded, for these purposes, as being in any way different from the casual employment elsewhere of other past Members of Parliament. By custom and practice, the other place takes no part in financial matters. In my view, this matter should be covered by that custom. I plead guilty to having been very well aware of that aspect of the amendment.
Past Members who suffer tragedy are covered by the Members' fund, but, in respect of these matters, the atmosphere that we have inherited is not always good. There are one or two points that I want to press home when we discuss the clause stand part motion. To some extent, we are still in a transitional situation. I do not think that we have achieved the ultimately desirable level of benefits.
The Leader of the House said that, as there will be a debate, there is no need for my amendment. I freely acknowledge his undertaking, given on 31 January, that there would be a debate and that it would take place after the TSRB had made its recommendations. However, the right hon. Gentleman will not always be Leader of the House. Nothing that happens on this occasion may be taken as a guarantee for the future. That is why the affirmative resolution procedure would be more appropriate, especially in respect of these matters.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) for his remarks. His point is valid to some extent, but it comes into the category of the one made by the Leader of the House. He said that in 1987 it was agreed that there would be a debate and he referred to what has been custom and practice, but, as I have indicated, there is no knowing what will happen in the future. For the moment, the trustees may be quite satisfied. I bow to their judgment, but in principle I am a little wary of what has been said.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point. He and I have been Members of Parliament for about the same length of time. Both of us, when in opposition, have pressed Governments for certain undertakings. Once a Government have given an undertaking—something that is enshrined in Hansard—he, certainly, and I, so far as I know, have always accepted that it will be honoured by all Governments. We were given such an undertaking four years ago. The hon. Gentleman and I, good House of Commons men as we are,

ought to be satisfied by that. Very seldom do people question undertakings given on behalf of Governments and recorded in Hansard.

Mr. Spearing: This is indeed a fascinating exchange. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know to what I am referring when I say that a very important undertaking concerning the examination of certain legislation was given. That was undermined in a written answer given on the last day before the summer recess. I understand what the trustees have done. I understand that discussions have taken place. I believe that I have made a constitutional point in this context. The arguments have been made. Having heard what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, for the management trustees, and the Leader of the House had to say, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I shall deal with not the structure of the clause and what it seeks to achieve, but the content. Again, we owe our thanks to the Leader of the House for the hard work that he has done. Having dealt with the complications of the common agricultural policy, waded through education in the United Kingdom and attempted to grapple with the procedures of the House of Commons, the simple matter of pensions should have been just a few moments of easy work. But alas, it is not thus. I imagine that the Leader of the House must have burned the midnight oil dealing with this extremely complex issue. Therefore, if what I have to say to him seems a little unfair, I hope that he will take it in good part.
The Leader of the House has said—he certainly did so in the debate on 31 January—that we want a scheme that is fair to everyone, but I am not sure that the scheme will be fair on widows. He has said that we have a scheme which will pay five eighths, not two thirds, of the pension allowable to the Member who dies. I hope that the next time that we have a benefit updating round we can have a look at that. It is not even five eighths of the pension of a Member who reaches the age of general retirement. It is five eighths of something less. That is an illustration of the point that I made. We still have some way to go in respect of that scheme.
I wish to deal with what is fair. I shall take the Lord President and hon. Members through a series of propositions with which they will not disagree. If any hon. Members disagree at any stage, they should please intervene. I have checked in various places and I believe that I have a watertight argument. It backs up the work of the chairman of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who is on the Front Bench.
We all want the scheme to be fair. There is an anomaly in the way in which we are working up the scheme. It must be fair in that it is not a disincentive to a person becoming a Member. More importantly, there should not be a disincentive in respect of a person's family, dependants or potential widow. We all know that at present in comparison to other schemes our scheme does not fulfil that criterion.
The scheme must also be fair to our employers, the taxpayers, as the Leader of the House has reminded us. But it must be fair to the Member. The proportion of


money that he has to pay from his salary should compare to what he, or other people in the public service, would pay if they were in a comparable occupation. I suggest that all those matters must be kept in some sort of equilibrium, together with what the benefit will buy or what the benefit level will be. We must watch that, too.
One of our problems in this realm is that three elements have to be borne in mind and they are sometimes confused. One is the proportion of money in any one year or over a period which can be contributed in money terms by the Exchequer and by the Members. The Government Actuary says that half of the money must be raised in order to keep the fund in equilibrium. The second is the proportion of the Member's salary. The third is the ratio between the contribution of the Member and that of the Treasury.
I suggest that those three elements, although related, are distinct. They are separate sets of variables, which can be moved together in more or less infinite combinations. Therefore, we have to decide on a system that raises enough money to reach the standard contribution, yet maintains equilibrium and fairness throughout the system.
At present, as I understand it, the main bone of contention in the evidence that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is to present to the TSRB is that in public schemes employees pay broadly 5 or 6 per cent. of their salaries, and the employer pays roughly double that amount. That proportion is more or less fixed, which is why we have perhaps alighted on the advantage of a fixed proportion.
However, the Leader of the House said in the debate on 31 January that there were disadvantages in a fixed proportion. If there is a change in demand in keeping up funds by the actuarial certificate—which is bound by some Acts of Parliament—while the hon. Member's contribution may be fixed, and we know how much the percentage will be for a long time ahead, the Treasury contribution could zoom up. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out in that debate that two or three years ago the Treasury contribution increased to about 18 per cent. The fact that it is now down to 4·4 per cent. is due to a notional surplus on the fund. But it is notional when compared to the benefits, because we know that the benefits are not what they ought to be.
Therefore, the Treasury gets what the Leader of the House is pleased to call a "holiday"—it is probably a banking term in the City, I do not know. I understand that for the foreseeable future that 4·4 per cent. is unlikely to be increased if we keep to the present actuarial calculations. I suppose that it could increase years ahead.
One of the problems that the Government Actuary and the House have is that membership can turn over pretty rapidly from one term to another—even more than redundancy. The age of Members of Parliament and the liabilities that they impose upon the fund can vary considerably. The actuarial calculations must be quite remarkable.
The other factor that is often overlooked is the skill in managing the fund. If it is managed skilfully, Members of Parliament still pay the same amount, but the Treasury contribution goes down. Although it is nice to have a skilfully managed fund, it benefits the Exchequer rather than the hon. Member, his dependants or the fund. There is an inherent imbalance in the situation.
In the previous debate on the subject the Leader of the House said that the scheme is quite good because if

Members of Parliament have to pay a fixed amount they are cushioned by Treasury liability going up or down. I agree with him in principle, but the trouble is that that fixed amount is 9 per cent. At the end of that debate the Leader of the House said that that amount could only be changed by statute. What are we about? The future regulation, which we have just debated in greater detail, could change that amount year on year. It can be changed within the resolution, although it is a negative resolution. So there is room for almost infinite flexibility, within the legislation before us.
I suggest to the Leader of the House, and through this debate to the TSRB—to back up the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East and that no doubt given by the trustees—that perhaps the ideal scheme is one in which the Member of Parliament's contribution is fixed to perhaps around 5 or 6 per cent. in line with outside schemes and the Treasury makes up any deficit, perhaps within a fixed limit, but one which is not less than the amount paid by the hon. Member, and which is on occasion a great deal more. That would mean that the tax payer—Joe Public—would be ensuring that public servants and their dependants were properly looked after. At the same time, the order would go through year on year to keep the equilibrium.
What is wrong with the present system is the 9 per cent., but it could surely be varied by clause 6. Therefore, I see no real difficulty for the future, provided the TSRB considers and reports on the points that I have been discussing. The structure might be equitable as long as the Member's contribution was equitable, but it is not. I do not think that the public could be regarded as a good employer if the contribution remained fixed at 9 per cent.
I hope that in recasting the mechanism through this clause, which we all welcome, the Leader of the House and others will note the arguments that I have made. I hope that they have been logical, correct and fair. The Leader of the House can put me right on any matter that I have not got correct, and we can go on from there. This is a contribution to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, the work of the trustees and the midnight oil burned by the Leader of the House.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) covered two points. The first was on the five eighths widow's pension which has been agreed. The point to stress to the Committee is that it came about because of a negotiation with the trustees on using the surplus in the fund. The five eighths used up the balance of the surplus. That is why it was not possible to go further.
There is, of course, a potential problem if there are not surpluses in the future. If we have a five eighths or a two thirds widow's pension, contributions may have to be raised in future to meet that if there is not a surplus in the fund. That is for the future. The point at present is that it was agreed that this was a sensible way to use the surplus. I accept that it is important to increase the widow's pension to get it closer to the levels of the best elsewhere. The point was agreed by the trustees with me and my predecessor in discussions.
The second point raised by the hon. Gentleman relates to the balance of contributions, which was quite a feature in the debate on 31 January. He is right to recall that in that debate I outlined some of the reasons why the existing


method was reached and, indeed, recommended by the TSRB. I put those points to ensure that the House recognised that the arguments in favour of the change for which hon. Members were pressing were not all one way and that there were arguments in favour of the existing system. I stressed some of those in the debate in order to get the balance of the argument right.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the balance of contributions is perhaps the biggest matter that I felt it right, and agreed with the trustees, to put to the TSRB to consider again. He will know that I announced that the Government accepted that the balance of contributions problem should be referred to the TSRB, as well as the resettlement grant about which hon. Members also felt strongly—I understand why. I indicated that I would put both positively to the TSRB. I wrote to the chairman of the TSRB on 4 February and the final text of the reference to the TSRB was published in Hansard on 5 February. I am glad to have the opportunity to restate that for hon. Members who did not see the written answer.
Perhaps I may use the opportunity briefly to update the Committee on the position in relation to the TSRB. As I told the House on 31 January, I expect the TSRB to report on the resettlement grant during April and on the balance of contributions as soon as possible thereafter—some time in May. The TSRB has asked that written evidence from the Government, the trustees, political parties and, indeed, anyone who wishes to make written submissions should be with it as soon as possible. It is a tight deadline. We are all working hard to that deadline because it is in our interests. I understand that the TSRB is to meet shortly before the end of the month. It will no doubt be inviting oral evidence in March.
We have set the TSRB a tight time scale for dealing with these important matters. I think the whole Committee will join me in expressing appreciation for the businesslike and brisk start that it is making. It is equally incumbent on us to express any views to the TSRB as quickly as possible.
The short answer to the hon. Member for Newham, South is that he is perfectly free to make the points that he has been making about the balance of contributions to the TSRB, so that it can examine them in relation to all the other points that have been put to it. I hope that the House will now approve clause 6.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Mr. Stanley Orme: May I briefly underline the points made by the Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the submissions to the TSRB regarding two vital points—the 9 per cent. contribution and the resettlement grant?
I have already written to the chairman of the TSRB putting forward the views of the parliamentary Labour party and hope to give oral evidence in the not-too-distant

future. I welcome the timetable set by the Leader of the House and I am glad that the TSRB has started work already; I think that it will agree to that timetable.
The Bill has had a chequered career. It has taken much longer to go through the House than has major legislation: I have seen three Leaders of the House while it has been progressing through its stages. I hope, for the purposes of the Bill and the findings of the TSRB, that the present Leader of the House will remain with us at least until the next election, although I will not speak about what may happen after that.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that the five eighths contribution to widows is not sufficient. The trustees want it to be three quarters, and we shall continue the pressure. The doubling of the death grant is welcome, however, as are other small improvements.
Clearly this is not the end of the story, and we look forward to the report from the TSRB.

Mr. MacGregor: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on the speed with which he has delivered his evidence to the TSRB: it is, I think, an indication of the importance that he attaches to the matter.
During our debate on the draft regulations on 31 January I said that I hoped to be able to accommodate the many representations made—both before and during that debate—in favour of years of service as an MEP counting as service in the House for the purposes of the early-retirement scheme. I now confirm that the Government accept that the change should apply to all service as an MEP, with no cut-off date. It will benefit all former MEPs now serving as Members of the House of Commons. The Government also intend to bring forward similar changes to the pension scheme for MEPs, to ensure that the two schemes remain in step with each other. That is, I think, a demonstration of how well the procedure has worked.
Drafts of the regulations were made available before the debate on 31 January. I hope to lay all the regulations, in final form—including those that provide for the increased death-in-service grant and the improved widow's pension—very soon. That is what impelled us to get on with it—that, in particular, there are increased death-in-service grants and improved widows' pensions which we are anxious to see in place.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that they will be retrospective?

Mr. MacGregor: They will be backdated to May 1988, as they were in the regulations.
The Bill has been gestating for a long time. I am grateful to the trustees and all the others who have been involved in bringing it to this point. That includes the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and, in particular, the chairman of the trustees. I hope that the Bill will now be given a Third Reading. It has had a speedy passage, which is what all hon. Members wanted.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CENSUS (CONFIDENTIALITY) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Second Reading what day?

Second Reading deferred till tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),

AGRICULTURE

That the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 2), dated 8th January 1991, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th January, be approved.

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1990, dated 19th December 1990, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th December, be approved—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

AIR POLLUTION FROM DIESEL ENGINED VEHICLES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6701/90, relating to emissions of gaseous

pollutants from diesel engines for use in motor vehicles over 3·5 tonnes; supports the Government in its efforts to secure an agreement on emissions from motor vehicles, taking into account the environmental benefits, the cost to vehicles operators and the need to set a stable standard for industry; supports in particular Her Majesty's Government's endeavours to delay the 1992 date as industrially impracticable; and in this connection expresses concern that the Commission has proposed that the Directive be based on Article 100A, rather than the more relevant Environment Article which is subject to unanimity.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Question agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION

Ordered,
That the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 84 (Constitution of standing committees), paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 86 (Nomination of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.) shall apply to the draft revised Code of Practice on time off for trade union duties and activities as if it were a draft statutory instrument; and that the said draft Code be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.[ Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the Matter of Rural Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the Matter for two hours at that sitting.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Orders of the Day — Police and Fire Services (West Yorkshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Many of my hon. Friends with constituencies in west and south Yorkshire would have liked to take part in the debate, but because so many wanted to speak I have had to say to them all that I am not prepared to give way to any of them, due to the comprehensive nature of the subject and the short time at my disposal in which I want to make as many points as I can. My hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) in particular expressed a special interest in the subject.
I am grateful for this opportunity to draw to the Minister's attention the difficulties faced by the West Yorkshire police authority in determining its budget and, hence, the poll tax on the people of west Yorkshire for the coming financial year. The authority is facing extreme financial difficulties. It has a legal duty to provide an efficient police service, but it also has a duty to fix a budget within Government guidelines. The problem is that it is faced with the threat of poll tax capping at a level which would inevitably reduce its uniformed and civilian establishment.
In considering the precept for 1991–92, therefore, the authority has had to be mindful both of the provisional proposals for charge capping and its statutory duty, under section 4 of the Police Act 1964, to provide an adequate and efficient police force for its area. The announcements made by the Secretary of State for the Environment concerning his provisional capping proposals would allow the West Yorkshire police authority only a 7 per cent. increase on its current year's budget. Can this possibly be realistic when set against the background of inflationary trends as we know them today? Simply to stand still and do no more than attempt to maintain the current level of policing within the county requires a 12 per cent. increase in funding.
Obviously no service wishes to stand still and the authority would have hoped to be in a position readily to accept the additional 14 police officers recently offered by the Home Secretary for appointment on 1 October next. The issue that concerns me and many others most of all is that with one hand the Government, through the Home Secretary, increases police establishments while with the other the Secretary of State for the Environment removes the ability to pay not only for those extra officers but also for at least 200 other officers who are already in post. The authority intends to continue its "civilianisation" programme, as actively encouraged by the Government—a policy pushed hard by west Yorkshire—which has already shown the benefits of additional police officers on the streets.
I have been disturbed to hear that the police authority has already had to curtail the replacement of civilian staff who undertake duties essential to the running of the force. Those jobs will have to be done, and it will be necessary to take more police officers off the streets, thus reversing the Government's policy of maximising the availability of police officers by employing more civilians.
There is a dilemma facing the authority—a desire to protect services, allow a little growth and respond

forcefully to an increasing crime rate in response to the often-voiced demands from the people of west Yorkshire. The capping proposals, however, restrict the authority's ability to respond to public demands. Despite representations from all groups within the authority and direct appeals to the Home Secretary and the Department of the Environment's senior people, the provisional capping proposals remain unchanged.
The authority is fully aware of its responsibilities and the potential more damaging effects of poll tax capping, but its members are worried about the scale of the reductions needed to meet the proposed capping threshold—£12 million. By anyone's assessment, that is a serious problem, but one that a responsible authority must address.
As you can well imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, officers and members of the police authority have spent a large amount of time on budget options for the coming year. Obviously, the formulation of means by which the budget submissions and the capping threshold can be bridged with the least operational and financial detriment has been of paramount importance.
A small part of the chief constable's development bid has been retained within the budget package, primarily to allow the police authority to accept the increase in the police establishment and to fund priority improvements in the communications network. Those items have been retained only by identifying potential reductions elsewhere.
I am grateful for this opportunity to inform the House of the potential situation in west Yorkshire should the provisional capping criteria not be changed by the Secretary of State. The catalogue of cuts that will have to be made is far from palatable. Let us consider them: 213 fewer police officers by the end of March 1992; 200 fewer support staff to back up the police officers; fewer traffic wardens and police cadets; no replacement of police vehicles, other than for write-offs; no new equipment; and only minimal provision for building maintenance. Allied to all that, the authority will have to find a further 10 per cent. reduction in expenditure in other areas.
The authority has limited reserves available. They must not be used indiscriminately. It is vital that adequate reserves are available to support the budget to ensure that unforeseen operational demands—for example, policing of large demonstrations and protracted, complicated crime investigations—can be met. The police authority is a single service authority and has no opportunity to vire moneys from other budget heads to the police service to offset any problems that may occur.
The police authority is faced with unprecedented external pressures in formulating its budget and precept for 1991–92. Set against the authority's desire to maintain the level and quality of services, the severe financial restrictions placed on the authority through the capping proposals can only serve to reverse growth trends of past years and have an impact on the scope of police development.
The West Yorkshire police force is recognised as a progressive force which is at the forefront of new developments and initiatives. The budget that the police authority has to set will severely jeopardise the policing of the county of West Yorkshire.
Peter Nobes, the chief constable of West Yorkshire, is so concerned about budget reductions that he has taken the unusual step of writing to the Home Secretary about


his fears for the future policing of west Yorkshire. He is not alone in his concerns; as hon. Members may be aware, all the chief constables in other major provincial forces have written echoing their concern about their own areas. The chief constable cannot understand how, with an increasing crime rate—in west Yorkshire it was 27 per cent. in 1990—he is expected to police the streets of west Yorkshire with fewer police officers. Furthermore, he points out that his officers increased their efficiency considerably last year and detected more crime than ever before-an increase of 12·5 per cent. on 1989. It appears that the West Yorkshire force is being penalised for increasing its efficiency.
The chief constable is extremely concerned that he will not be able to replace any vehicles next year. Does the Minister realise that that will mean that the efficiency of the West Yorkshire force will be reduced considerably because it will be throwing money down the drain on repairing vehicles that must be retained beyond their economic lives? Vehicles will be off the road for longer, and that will store problems for years to come.
My main concern is west Yorkshire, but I take the opportunity of drawing to the attention of the House the corresponding difficulties faced by all the six metropolitan police authorities as a result of capping. The cuts faced by West Yorkshire are mirrored in the other five metropolitan areas. Can it possibly be acceptable for a Government who were elected on the promise of a strong law and order platform to be forcing such cuts on the police authority?
The fire service in west Yorkshire is in a similar position. In the past four years, our local fire service has been buckling in the face of the Government's discredited and discriminatory method of calculating the standard spending assessment. Despite sympathetic mumblings in the Corridors here and in Whitehall, nothing has been done to adjust the fire authority's unrealistic financial targets. The fateful result has been that the authority is no longer able to set an adequate budget.
That situation, in an essential public service, is untenable. Not only may lives be put at risk and jobs go to the wall but the authority may soon find itself in breach of its statutory obligations. By imposing a standard spending assessment which is a staggering £7·9 million less than the £52·9 million needed to pay for services in 1991–92, the Government display nothing but bankruptcy of financial thought. That £7·9 million represents hundreds of firefighters' jobs, the loss of vital fire-fighting appliances and equipment and the loss of nine special units. This morning, I visited Pontefract fire station and talked to fire officers and members of the fire service union, who spoke with one voice in expressing their concern.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lofthouse: I am sorry, I cannot do so because I have little time left.
Three of the nine special units that will be lost are in my constituency. They carry specialised equipment such as a thermal imager, Viking suits, heavy cutting equipment, primary decontamination equipment, lighting generators, air bags for lifting equipment and paraguard stretchers. Those units are vital not only in my constituency, in which are situated the chemical plants of Hicksons at Castleford and Croda at Knottingley, large pits and the junction of the M62 and Al, but in constituencies throughout west

Yorkshire and elsewhere. The main loss will be the skilled and highly trained men who operate those necessary machines, and that is nothing but a scandal.
If, as seems likely, the fire authority agrees to set a revenue budget at the maximum permitted to escape poll tax capping£49·9 million—it will still leave a £3 million shortfall. With recruitment already suspended and savage one-off savings made in premises and supplies, the cuts will bite hard. Yet West Yorkshire's level of expenditure is determined largely by the need to provide fire cover to Home Office standards. The fact that the SSA takes no account of the cost of complying with those standards illustrates the absurdity of the present Administration's approach to local government finance. West Yorkshire is effectively being penalised by one Government Department for doing the bidding of another.
The need for a just formula for calculating SSAs that recognises Home Office approved establishment levels and local settlement patterns should be self-evident. Of course, there are none so blind as those who do not want to see, and there is genuine concern among many fire-fighters in west Yorkshire that Ministers have sought to squirm off the hook by exploiting the decisions of Her Majesty's inspectors, who have been investigating where cuts and efficiency savings could be made. I understand that in 1986 the Home Office revised the role of Her Majesty's inspectorate to require inspectors to make an assessment of "value-for-money" spending in brigades. In West Yorkshire, that has now led the inspectors to link underfunding of the brigade to a mysterious and hitherto undiscovered over-provision of fire cover. The future of five fire stations and a number of special appliances, such as emergency tenders and hydraulic platforms, was therefore called into question. It is rather strange that Her Majesty's inspectors should have called into question the need for such equipment.
The Home Office has suggested that it will support west Yorkshire's case for proper funding if it firmly addresses HMI's concerns. In simplistic terms, via the HMI, the Government have found a way to justify their assault on the fire service budget. The minimum required to satisfy the HMI may be the closure of Sowerby Bridge fire station, the withdrawal of nine specials and the loss of 137 jobs—60 of them in my area.
Given that the brigade is busier than ever and was established on a tradition of efficiency and thriftiness, I find it hard to accept that, overnight, surplus fat has appeared. Operational calls attended by the brigade increased by 30 per cent., from 29,027 to 37,967 between 1987–88 and 1989–90. In the same period, the number of fires increased by 38 per cent. to 16,845 and the number of people rescued by 35 per cent. to 104. Forty-five people lost their lives during fires in 1989–90—an 80 per cent. increase over the 1987–88 period.
How can fire and police authorities be expected to maintain an effective service, in accordance with Home Office guidelines, and at the same time work within the present budgets and capping arrangements? In my view, and in the view of the fire service, if the Government's capping arrangements are rigid, there will be loss of life. On the police side, we shall see an increase in crime. We have seen what has happened in London today. We cannot afford to allow our police to run down.
On 13 February the Home Secretary sent a letter to police authorities. For the life of me, I do not know what the Government expect the police authorities to make of it. The third paragraph says:
It is now for each authority to set its budget. In doing so it should take into account all relevant considerations including its statutory duties, the approved level of police manpower, the Government's intended capping criteria, the need as appropriate for expenditure restraint, and the scope for greater efficiency. Within this context I expect metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets at a level which maintains operational police manpower at the level which I and my predecessors have approved, and I do not expect this to be done by moving police officers into posts held by civilians. I also expect police authorities to pursue vigorously a policy of streamlining administration, cutting out waste, and maximising value for money.
The Home Office is asking a chief constable and others to do precisely what the Home Office does not expect chief police officers to do.
If the authorities budget over and above the capping guidelines, they will be threatened with capping. If they stick to their budgets and end up being capped, they must continue with the administration and circulation of the poll tax and that could cost each authority about £1 million. That money would be a complete waste. If the Minister cannot give me full assurances about the matter tonight, I hope that he will meet a small deputation from south and west Yorkshire and will give further consideration to our requests.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If the Minister fails satisfactorily to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), my hon. Friends will be pressing for a wider debate in Government time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on securing the debate. He made a courteous and powerful case on behalf of his constituents and I listened carefully to what he said about the police and fire services in west and south Yorkshire. It may help the House if I briefly explain how we have reached this position.
I acknowledge fully the contribution of the skilled and highly trained policemen and fire-fighters throughout the country. My dedication to progress in both those services is beyond question. I have for many years as a constituency Member been keen to promote the interests of both those services and of the ambulance service in my authorities.
During last year's capping round, many authorities suggested to us that in future we should make an early announcement of the criteria that we intended to adopt for charge capping for a year, well before authorities came to set their budgets for that year. This year we have done just that, as authorities requested.
On 31 October last year, at the same time as he announced his proposals for the revenue support grant settlement for 1991–92, my right hon. Friend the Member

for Bath (Mr. Patten) announced his intentions for capping in 1991–92. He made clear then that he was prepared to make full use of his powers to cap authorities' budgets if necessary, to ensure that the benefits of the extra £3 billion which we were making available for 1991–92 were passed on to charge payers, rather than to fuelling excessive spending. With such an advance indication of our capping intentions, any authorities which in the event would be capped would have put themselves in that position with their eyes open. I shall be delighted to meet this week hon. Members who represent the authorities concerned if the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford would be kind enough to contact me, and we can discuss the issues.
Since October, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have on several occasions made it clear that the Government stand firmly by our capping intentions. I do so again tonight. I want also to remind the House how the capping machinery works.
Having made clear our intended criteria, it is now for authorities to fix their budgets in that knowledge. When they have done so we must consider those budgets and make our statutory decisions on the criteria to be used. Those criteria will determine which authorities are capped.
At the same time, we must propose the numerical level of the cap for each capped authority in the light of the information we have about its individual circumstances. That authority then has 28 days within which to accept the level of our proposed cap or to suggest an alternative. Only thereafter if an authority has not accepted our proposed cap do we bring forward to this House an order finally fixing the level of its cap.
A number of metropolitan authorities have now set their budgets. Two fire authorities have now set budgets at or below the level of the intended criteria. Tyne and Wear fire authority has set it at the level and Greater Manchester has set it at about 2 per cent. below the level.

Mr. Lofthouse: I again draw the Minister's attention to the letter in which the Home Secretary says that he expects metropolitan police authorities to set their budgets at levels which maintain police manpower at the level which he and his predecessor had approved. Does that mean that if authorities set their budgets at levels which allow them to maintain that manpower they will not be capped?

Mr. Key: My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment must bear that important point in mind. We must also pay attention to the Home Secretary's decision, and will do so. I shall shortly return to the principle of that point.
I remind the House of the meaning of the intended criteria. They would mean that authorities that budget well above their standing spending assessments would be allowed a smaller budget increase than those budgeting nearer to their SSA before their budgets fell within the criteria. Most importantly, the intended criteria mean that no authority spending next year at or below its SSA will be capped. I remind the House that the settlement for 1991–92 which the House approved on 29 January means an increase of 19·4 per cent. in total SSAs, and an increase in total external support of 12·8 per cent., or almost £3 billion. This is generous and realistic.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: rose——

Mr. Key: I shall not give way because the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford did not give way and explained why. It would be unfair of me not to follow his example.
The House will wish to know what the settlement means for police and fire services. For the fire service, we have an increase in provision of 16 per cent. compared with 1990–91. For the police service the increase is approaching 12 per cent. These are not inconsiderable sums, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is satisfied that the levels of provision which the Government have made available for these vital services are appropriate and sufficient. The settlement demonstrates once again that we are committed to ensuring effective and appropriate police and fire services throughout the country.
I should draw the House's attention to the fact that what we are providing takes account of increases in establishment approved by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. For 1991–92 he has approved an increase of some 700 uniformed officers across the country. He did that on 20 December last. The House may wonder why, only two days earlier, the chief constables of the six metropolitan areas were suggesting that, even with spending above SSA, far from there being increases in staff, there would need to be reductions. I find this contradiction difficult to resolve.
With this in mind, it is useful to look at the facts. Between 1979 and 1990, police strength in south Yorkshire increased by some 400 men and women to 2,969, while in west Yorkshire it increased in the same period by some 550 to 5,285. Yet we are told that it will be necessary next year to give up almost the whole of these increases achieved over 12 years. What, one may ask, could have led to such a drastic reversal of fortunes? The answer, we are told, is that it would actually be a result of being able to increase budgets by 7 per cent. in the case of west Yorkshire and 9 per cent. in the case of south Yorkshire.
The 7 per cent. increase is not an allowance for inflation. The key is the starting point. We do not accept that we should simply take last year's budget for an authority and allow an increase for inflation. West Yorkshire's budget for this year is just under 10 per cent. above its SSA. That is the level of spending that we consider appropriate to provide a standard level of service.
Many of the arguments advanced simply do not stand up. The House may wonder whether this is an example of the type of scaremongering story to which we have become accustomed from other authorities, but not, until now, from this quarter.
During the debate on the settlement, my right hon. Friend graphically illustrated how this sort of thing has happened in the past. He quoted from the NALGO publication "Public Service". It had carried out a survey of what actually happened in some of the authorities whose

excessive budgets we capped last year. Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million, with no compulsory redundancies. Bristol's budget cut was £7·6 million.

Mr. Hinchliffe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate is about West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, not Rochdale or the other authorities that the Minister has mentioned. Will the Minister address the issue of the 10 per cent. cuts in West Yorkshire?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is in order.

Mr. Key: Rochdale's budget was cut by £8 million, but with no compulsory redundancies, and Bristol's was cut by £7·6 million with no redundancies, no cuts in services and no charge increases. With this experience, the House may ask how can charge payers have confidence in their police and fire authorities?
Let me continue with my explanation of what the settlement means for those authorities. As the House may know, detailed methodology for SSAs has been adopted only after extensive analysis and research and after discussions with the local authority associations. For police, the distribution is based on the authority's approved level of police manpower. For fire, there is a number of indicators in the formula, including population, fire and false alarm calls, density of population, and a measure of the proportion of the area with a high fire risk. In essence, the end result is that for each authority there is a figure representing the measure of expenditure which would be appropriate for that authority to incur, in its particular circumstances, to provide a standard level of service. We were satisfied when we took our decisions, and remain so, that the police and fire formulas for SSAs are fair and appropriate.
When I meet the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford later in the week with his colleagues, I shall he glad to discuss these points. I very much hope that we can have a discussion. They will not be part of a capping delegation. We hope that by then his authorities will have set their budgets. I very much hope that we can continue to have confidence in the excellent service of the police and fire authorities in his constituency and across the country.
It is important to stress that we consider the particular circumstances of each authority and are concerned to provide a standard level of service across the country. We remain satisfied about the decisions that we have taken, but we cannot make final decisions on capping until budgets are set—that is laid down in statute—and we shall do so with every consideration.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.